JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The civil revision is against an order rejecting an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rules 16 and 14 read with 151 CPC for striking off the pleadings in the statement dated 06.02.2003. The grievance of the petitioners was that the written statement which had been filed by the defendants in answer to the plaint as originally filed was sought to be amended subsequently introducing several paragraphs in the written statement which were inconsistent with the original contentions raised in the written statement. The plaintiff would contend that when the plaintiff made an amendment to his pleadings, the amendment which the defendant could have made or added to the pleadings ought to be consequential to the amendment brought by the plaintiff and the defendant could not have broughtforth new defences which had no bearing to the amended pleadings in the plaint. 2. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners would draw my attention to the original plaint which he had filed for which written statement had also been filed and point out to the amendment which he had subsequently made to the plaint and want a comparison of the written statement filed subsequently introducing new paragraphs which had no bearing to the plaintiff’s amendment. In particular, the learned counsel would point out that para 2 as originally contained in the plaint was with reference to a purchase of property in her name for which the defence as contained in the written statement (unamended) was as follows:- “2. Para no.2 of the plaint is totally incorrect and is denied. House No.186, Model Town, Karnal was purchased by Shri Pritam Singh with his own money the plaintiff was a pauper at the time of marriage and has not source of income at the time of purchase of the house, the plaintiff married Pritam Singh fully knowing the due to a major operations, he was unable to bear her a child. She simply married him for his wealth at the instance of her brother Surinder Singh with whom she was living at the time of her marriage. The plaintiff has not intentionally given the details of purchase of his house.” 3. She simply married him for his wealth at the instance of her brother Surinder Singh with whom she was living at the time of her marriage. The plaintiff has not intentionally given the details of purchase of his house.” 3. It can be noticed that as regards the plaintiff’s assertion that she had purchased the property in Model Town through a sale deed dated 29.04.1966, the contention in defence originally was that the plaintiff was a mere pauper at the time of her marriage with Pritam Singh and that she had no source of income for the purchase. The defence also was that the plaintiff had not intentionally given the details of purchase of the house. Through an amendment in the written statement, apart from rephrasing the opening sentence with reference to the time of purchase as having been made much before 1966 in which he was living before that and has named this house as PRITAM GHAR and that he even renovated it made some construction and solemnized the marriage of his sister before this alleged sale and that further he even opted for joining the Haryana cadre being a resident of Karnal, he added the following sentence: “.......The sale deed if any is a fabricated, false and sham transaction prepared after the death of previous wife of Pritam Singh.........” The last portion of the written statement is what the plaintiff is particularly aggrieved about in that it says the sale deed (29.04.1966), if any, is fabricated, false and sham transaction prepared after the death of previous wife of Pritam Singh. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would argue that while the original written statement was that it was a benami purchase, the defendant was trying to plead the sale itself sham through the subsequent amended written statement. I cannot find any serious inconsistency at all for the benami transaction is understood in two ways: either as a property purchased in the name of another (benamidar) for the benefit of the real owner or, that the transaction of sale itself does not vest title. In other words, although it may stand in the name of ostensible owner (benamidar), the title continues to vest in the transferor. In this case, the defendant has tried to explain that the transaction of purchase in the name of plaintiff as a sham and fabricated document. In other words, although it may stand in the name of ostensible owner (benamidar), the title continues to vest in the transferor. In this case, the defendant has tried to explain that the transaction of purchase in the name of plaintiff as a sham and fabricated document. It is another way of explaining that no title passed to the plaintiff. 4. In legal parlance, the principal objection by the revision petitioners is that the amended statement has been beyond the scope of the amended plaint. The amendment in the written statement can only relate to matters which are amended in the plaint and they cannot bring new facts. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners refers to me the several decisions to the effect that the amended written statement must be confined only to the amended pleadings. In Shri Charanjit Lal Versus Shri Ramesh Kumar- 2012(2) PLR 51, a single Judge of this Court has held that the change in the amended written statement shall confine only to the statement contained in the amended plaint. New pleas cannot be permitted to be raised as the same will be only on a different footing. A similar proposition has also been laid down in Improvement Trust, Patiala Versus Jaswinder Kaur and others- [2011(5) Law Herald (P&H) 479] : 2010(4) PLR 463 . An earlier decision on the same subject is Mittar Sain and others Versus Ram Dass and another-1978 PLR 145. There are also decisions to the same effect from the Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Allahabad. I do not feel constrained to refer to them since they are merely the replication of the principle brought out through the judgments of this Court. The issue has been squarely dealt with by two decisions of the Supreme Court which would require to be stated for bringing out the law on the subject. 5. In Gurdial Singh and others Versus Raj Kumar Aneja and others- 2002(2) SCC 445 , the Supreme Court set out general principles relating to amendment. The Court held that once an application for amendment is allowed, the opposite party’s application for amendment that is consequential by way of answer to the amended pleadings ought to be ordinarily and liberally allowed. However, a new plea cannot be permitted to be introduced in the guise of a consequential amendment. The Court held that once an application for amendment is allowed, the opposite party’s application for amendment that is consequential by way of answer to the amended pleadings ought to be ordinarily and liberally allowed. However, a new plea cannot be permitted to be introduced in the guise of a consequential amendment. This emphasizes the fact that when a plaint is amended, the Court normally allows for additional pleadings to be brought by the defendant. In such a course, the Court shall be liberal in allowing for amendment, but it would not allow for totally irrelevant and new things to be stated. If a person want to take up an additional plea which is not in any way connected with the amended pleadings of the plaintiff, the procedure prescribed by law is that the party will take a permission to give such pleadings by an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. I find from the record that in this case an application for amendment to the plaint was ordered on 14.12.2000 and although the Court directed amended written statement to be filed on 23.12.2000, the defendant did not file the amended statement but sought for adjournment on the ground that he had challenged the order passed allowing for the amendment of the plaint in Civil Revision No.1092 of 2001 before this Court. The High Court dismissed the revision filed by the defendant on 11.07.2002 holding that a revision is impermissible by the amended provisions of Section 115 CPC but granted to the defendant the liberty to challenge the correctness of the order in a regular appeal after the case is decided, if he was still aggrieved by the ultimate decision taken by the Court on the basis of the amended pleadings. When the case was brought up before the trial Court after disposal of the civil revision mentioned above, the defendant has filed the written statement with amended pleadings which, according to the plaintiff, contained pleas which were new and they were not merely consequential to the amended pleadings. 6. I may observe that the amended written statement could be said to be bringing wholly a new defence only if it is totally out of sync with the amended plaint. 6. I may observe that the amended written statement could be said to be bringing wholly a new defence only if it is totally out of sync with the amended plaint. In this case, the nature of amendment that has come in the amended written statement is not in the nature of introducing any new pleadings which are irrelevant or inconsistent to the pleadings which were already there. On the other hand, it only explains some matters in a more graphic sense. There had been introduction of paras 1A and 1B which referred to the transposition of the 6th defendant as a second plaintiff and seeking for the entitlement to the share of the second plaintiff as an alleged adopted son and a further claim that since the second plaintiff had not been joined as a party in the suit for permanent injunction filed at Ludhiana which had purported to affect the rights of the second plaintiff, the decree was liable to be set aside. The averment in para 1A and 1B brought through the written statement has specifically elicited a response through amended written statement in paras 1A and 1B. The revision petitioners have a grievance that since no amendment was made at all in respect of para 2 that describes the house in the Model Town at Karnal, there could have been no amendment in the written statement as regards para 2. There is nothing inconsistent for it merely explains what is already available in the pleadings that the property in the name of the plaintiff did not belong to her but the source of purchase was provided by Pritam Singh. I cannot accept that any prejudice could be caused by the addition of this line. 7. In para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff had averred about the fact that she had filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order filed in the Court at Ludhiana and the application for setting aside the ex parte decree had been dismissed for default on 09.03.1983. The original written statement stated that the plaintiff had been properly served, appeared at many dates and that she had full opportunity to contesting the suit but she deliberately delayed the proceedings on one pretext or another. The original written statement stated that the plaintiff had been properly served, appeared at many dates and that she had full opportunity to contesting the suit but she deliberately delayed the proceedings on one pretext or another. She knew that she would not be able to prove the allegations and she attempted through her paternal relations and defendant’s relative to put pressure on the defendant to compromise with her. Since the demands put forward on her behalf were unjust, no compromise could be effected. I find the very same statement is reiterated in the amended written statement and the addition has been by reference to the fact that the Court had no option but to pass a decree after accepting the evidence adduced including the Will of the mother of the defendants (plaintiffs in that suit) dated 10.11.1975. The further averments in para 6 of the written statement are merely the legal effect of allowing an application to set aside the ex parte decree to be dismissed for default and a decree having become final to operate as a res judicata. There has been a reference again in para 15 of the plaint through an amendment referring to the decree obtained by the defendants in the Court at Ludhiana as null and void and without jurisdiction and give a reason as to how the suit filed within one month from the date when the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 23.10.1982 was within time. This has also been contested in the written statement. I do not find that there is anything new brought in the pleadings in the additional written statement that can prejudice the plaintiff in any way. In Iqbal and others Versus His Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohamed Burhanuddin Saheb-2006(1) Apex Court Judgments 733 the Supreme Court was only giving a direction that the striking out all pleadings would become essential to keep irrelevant pleadings out of ken of reckoning. In this case nothing of what has come through the amended written statement brings in any irrelevant thing to be eschewed. 8. The rule as to amendment to pleadings could be summarized, in so far as relevant to this case. If an amendment is made subsequent to suit after the trial has commenced, it shall normally be taken as impermissible, unless there are very special circumstances established. 8. The rule as to amendment to pleadings could be summarized, in so far as relevant to this case. If an amendment is made subsequent to suit after the trial has commenced, it shall normally be taken as impermissible, unless there are very special circumstances established. If the amendment to plaint is brought before the commencement of evidence to bring in a subsequent event, the defendant is entitled to join issues on the additional pleadings either by way of amendment to the written statement or by way of additional pleadings to the written statement. The Court shall normally post the case for such a course and there is no necessity for the defendant to move any application in that regard. The amendment to written statement that is consequential shall normally be confined to the portion of the statement in plaint that stands amended. Even if an amendment to the written statement must be confined only to consequential amendment of the plaint, the amendment to the written statement in respect of matters not consequential to the amended pleadings could always be brought through a separate petition explaining reasons for bringing amendment to the written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. If additional pleadings were to be brought through a separate application, unless such pleadings were to retract from admissions or scurrilous and defamatory allegations had been made or an attempt take up pleas which put the plaintiff to disadvantage, the same would always be allowed. If the consequential amendment to the written statement spills on matters, not dealt with in the amended portion of the plaint, it has to be seen whether the amended portion of the written statement is wholly irrelevant, inconsistent or if permitted to be taken, whether special prejudice would be caused. If no such objection could be taken, the amendment shall be normally allowed. 9. Since the proceedings have spilt for more than two decades, if the plaintiffs assume themselves to be aggrieved in any way by the amended written statement, I would put the scale even by allowing for the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement before the trial Court within two weeks from the date of first hearing before the trial Court, after the disposal of this revision petition. Before parting with the case, I would also observe that the revision was originally filed under Section 115 CPC. Before parting with the case, I would also observe that the revision was originally filed under Section 115 CPC. When this Court pointed out that the amendment to the written statement, if it had not been allowed, would not have gone to dispose of the case itself which is a test applicable for maintainability of Section 115 CPC, a petition for amendment was made to treat the revision as under Section 115 CPC as revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. If the test of Article 227 were to be applied then even a mere error in the order ought not to be taken as sufficient for an intervention. It is the illegality of the order or a complete lack of jurisdiction that would require an intervention under Article 227. Assuming for the arguments’ sake that the defendant had traversed beyond the amended plaint to be contested through an amended written statement, it is merely an irregular exercise of discretion. After all the defendant can take up inconsistent pleas and it is for this reason that the Courts are more liberal to accommodate amendment to the written statement and apply a different yardstick than amendment to the plaint. Judging from such a standpoint, I cannot find the amendment made to the written statement could cause any such prejudice to the plaintiff. For this reason also the petition filed by the plaintiff to strike off the amended written statement does not arise in a revision brought under Article 227 of the Constitution. 10. On an overall consideration of the case, I am of the view that the petition challenging the amendment to the written statement would require to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.