JUDGMENT :- 1. The defendant before the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam aggrieved over the order in dismissing his application in I.A.No.175 of 2011 in O.S.No.549 of 2006 for filing additional written statement is before this Court. 2. The respondent herein has filed the said suit against the petitioner herein for his eviction. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed written statement admitting that he is the tenant under the respondent herein. While so, he seeks to file an additional written statement giving a go-by to the earlier written statement and now, he seeks to raise that the respondent herein is not a owner of the premises and that the petitioner is not a tenant under him. The Court below came to the conclusion that the same cannot be permitted and dismissed the application. 3 I am also in total agreement with the findings of the learned trial Judge. In (2007) 5 SCC 602 (Usha balashaheb Swami and others Vs Kiran Appaso Swami and others) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in written statement can be allowed as long as the amended pleadings do not result in causing grave injustice and irretrievable prejudice to plaintiff or displacing him completely". 4 In yet another decision in (2010)7 MLJ 432 (S.Sathish and another Vs Dr.Sumathi and others) this Court has held that "in the case of receipt of additional written statement, when the admission made earlier is not wiped out and is going to be kept intact, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff even though a inconsistent plea is taken in the additional written statement. In such a case, rejection of the application to receive additional written statement is not justified". 5 In (2007)4 MLJ 1098 (S.Suresh Vs Sivabalakannan and others) it has been held that "leave to file additional written statement is to be granted liberally except when the defendant raises mutually destructive pleas or tries to introduce a new case altogether by way of filing an additional written statement. 6 Thus, the above citations would disclose that the defendant is at liberty to take altogether a different plea, but it shall not cause any prejudice or injustice to the plaintiff. 7 It has also been held that the admission made earlier shall not be wiped out by filing an additional written statement. 6 Thus, the above citations would disclose that the defendant is at liberty to take altogether a different plea, but it shall not cause any prejudice or injustice to the plaintiff. 7 It has also been held that the admission made earlier shall not be wiped out by filing an additional written statement. In the case on hand, as rightly pointed out by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner who has admitted in the written statement that the respondent herein is the owner of the property and he is a tenant under him, now trying to take a different plea that the respondent is not a owner of the property and he is not a tenant under him. That too, the said plea was taken after the examination of P.W.1. Definitely, it will cause great prejudice to the respondent herein. 8 In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the Court below rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner which does not require any interference by this Court. 9 In fine, the Civil revision petition is dismissed. However, no orders as to cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.