Judgment : 1. These writ petitions are directed against the order of I.A.Nos.6 and 7 filed by the petitioner, one under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure code, 1908 and another under Section 151 of the CPC. 2. Petitioner-defendant 2 had sought for amendment of the written statement for incorporating para 13-A. He also filed another application in I.A.No.VII seeking counterclaim against the plaintiffs. Both the applications have been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 11th January, 2012, as against which, these writ petitions have been filed. 3. Respondents 1 to 3-plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.15590 of 2006. In response to the summons, this defendant has filed a written statement on 22-7-2006 and the application for counter-claim was filed on 28-3-2011. The counter-claim could have been filed either before filing the written statement or before a day fixed for filing the written statement as contemplated under Order 8, Rule 6-A of CPC. 4. As far as application I.A.No.VI is concerned, petitioner’s defence in the written statement was that, he had denied the entire claim of the plaintiffs and he had even denied that the first plaintiff has not executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of first defendant. Now he wants to seek amendment of the written statement, which would have an effect of taking away the admissions, which are already made by him in the original written statement. 5. No doubt, the amendment application is required to be construed liberally and the defendant could also raise inconsistent plea. But if the written statement is already filed an subsequent amendment, if it has any effect of taking away the admission, such amendment could not be allowed. Apart from this, amendment to the written statement is sought at the stage when the matter is set down for evidence and evidence is already commended. 6. Having regard to the circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly, both the petitions fail and are dismissed.