Judgment : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petitions arise out of two orders passed by the Learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Jaysingpur. In so far as the Writ Petition No.9794 of 2010 is concerned, the impugned order is dated 12-10-2010 by which order the Application for amendment of the Special Civil Suit No.173 of 2004, came to be rejected. In so far as Writ Petition No.1026 of 2011 is concerned, the impugned order is dated 15-12-2010, by which order the Application for amendment of the Written Statement came to be rejected. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can briefly be stated thus – The Respondents in both the above Petitions have filed Special Civil Suit No.34 of 2005 for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,00,000/-from the Petitioner in both the Petitions. The Petitioner in both the above Petitions has filed Special Civil Suit No.173 of 2004 for recovery of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/-from the Respondents. The Petitioner was earlier a partnership firm of which the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Anjana Mahavir Patil and Mahavir Jangonda Patil, were the two partners amongst others. The dispute is in respect of the amount which has been recovered by one Ratnakar Bank Ltd., who had advanced loan according to the Petitioner for buying Boring units. It appears that on failure of the Petitioner to pay the loan amount, the said bank had filed proceedings in the Civil Court which thereafter came to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) which passed a decree some time in the year 2001 pursuant to which, the said decree was executed and the amount was recovered from the Petitioner by the said Bank. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Partnership Deed dated 1-4-1993 as well as the Agreement dated 4-4-1993 contemplates that the Respondents herein were to discharge the liability towards the Ratnakar Bank and hence the Petitioner has filed the suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs.24,00,000/-which has been received from it. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Partnership Deed dated 1-4-1993 as well as the Agreement dated 4-4-1993 contemplates that the Respondents herein were to discharge the liability towards the Ratnakar Bank and hence the Petitioner has filed the suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs.24,00,000/-which has been received from it. The Respondents herein have filed their written statement in the said suit and have denied their liability and in fact have filed their own suit as indicated above which is Special Civil Suit No.34 of 2005 for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,96,000/-which according to them is owned by the partnership firm to them. It appears that the partnership firm after the retirement of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein is now a proprietorship concern. 4. Be that as it may, the Petitioner herein filed its Written Statement on 6-12-2005 in the suit filed by the Respondents being Special Civil Suit No.34 of 2005. The proceedings initiated by the said Ratnakar bank and thereafter transferred to the DRT, have been referred to in paragraph 21 of the said Written Statement. The case of the Petitioner that it is the liability of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is also pleaded in the said Written Statement. The Petitioner filed an amendment application being Exhibit 42 in the said Special Civil suit No.34 of 2005 seeking to amend its Written Statement in terms of the proposed amendment contained therein. The proposed amendment is for incorporating the pleadings as regards the payment to the Kirloskar Company who had supplied the said Boring units out of the working capital of the Petitioner regarding the transfer of loan sanctioned to current account of the Petitioner. In the said Application, it was averred that the papers relating to the DRT proceedings were lost and therefore the amendment application could not be moved earlier. The said application was opposed by the Respondents by filing their reply. The Trial court has by impugned order rejected the said application on the ground that totally new story was sought to be put up. The Trial Court as can be seen has referred to the said Application for amendment of the Written Statement as filed by the Plaintiff instead of the Defendant and has also observed that if the amendment is allowed, the nature of the suit would change. The Trial Court as can be seen has referred to the said Application for amendment of the Written Statement as filed by the Plaintiff instead of the Defendant and has also observed that if the amendment is allowed, the nature of the suit would change. This was probably in view of the fact that the same Learned Judge has rejected the Application filed by the Petitioner herein for amendment of the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.173 of 2004. In so far as the Writ Petition No.9274 of 2010 is concerned, the Application therein was for amendment of the plaint filed by the Petitioner for amending the Special Civil Suit No.173 of 2004 filed by it. The said Application is rejected on the ground that the Plaintiff i.e. the Petitioner is coming up with a new story and that would change the nature of the suit. 5. It is well settled that in so far as the amendment of a Written Statement is concerned, it stands on a different footing than an amendment of the plaint. In so far as the Defendants are concerned, it is well settled that alternative pleas can be taken by them in the Written Statement. However, in so far as the present case is concerned, as indicated above, the substance of the case of the Petitioner that it was the liability of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the said amount has been elaborately pleaded in the Written Statement and the facts relating to the decree passed by the DRT have also been referred to. The amendment sought by way of the application therefore in my view could only be said to be clarificatory in nature and which would aid in deciding the lis between the parties. Though there is some delay in filing the said Application, the fact that the suits in question have not proceeded beyond the issues being framed, is a factor which would have to be taken into consideration. Though strictly it can be said that the trial has began however in the facts of the instant case, wherein the defence which has already been taken by the Petitioner, does not change in any manner. In my view, the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the said Application. 6. Though strictly it can be said that the trial has began however in the facts of the instant case, wherein the defence which has already been taken by the Petitioner, does not change in any manner. In my view, the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the said Application. 6. In so far as the companion Writ Petition is concerned, as indicated above there are already averments in the plaint as regards the liability of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the said amount as also there is a reference to the DRT proceedings. The amendment therefore sought in the plaint which are to the same extent as sought in the Written Statement in the suit filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would therefore in my view lead to an effectual adjudication of the lis between the parties. Hence, both the Writ Petitions are required to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. Resultantly, the impugned orders in both the Writ Petitions are set aside and the Applications Exhibit 42 and 88 are consequently allowed. The Petitioner would be allowed to carry out the amendment in the Written Statement filed in Special Civil Suit No.34 of 2005 and in the plaint filed in Special Civil Suit No.173 of 2004 within a period of four weeks from date. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein would be entitled to file their Additional Written Statement in the said Special Civil Suit No.173 of 2004 dealing with the amended plaint. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner would have no objection to the commensurate amendment made in the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.34 of 2005, having regard to the Written Statement filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Special Civil Suit no.173 of 2004. The said application for amendment to be filed by the Respondents in their suit before the Trial Court which would consider the said Application in terms of the instant order and direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to carry out the amendments accordingly. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.