JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta J.:- Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the court below whereby defendants have been allowed to amend the written statement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order. According to him, application for amendment has been moved after lapse of 10 years of institution of suit. The proceedings having made much headway, trial court has gravely erred in accepting the prayer. Besides, plea now taken by defendants would completely displace the case of the plaintiffs. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has opposed the plea. According to him, trial court has rightly allowed the prayer for amendment which is merely explanatory. The order is sustainable in law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Plaintiffs instituted a suit in the year 2002 seeking a declaration that they alongwith defendant no. 8 had their share in the land as described in the plaint. They also sought a decree for joint possession to the extent of their share. Certain consequential reliefs were also prayed for. Contesting defendants filed written statement in the year 2003 and issues were framed in the year 2004. As the case reached the stage of defendants’ evidence, instant application was moved for amendment of written statement. Defendants sought to raise number of new pleas. They sought to deny that Harbans Kaur, mother of plaintiff had colluded with defendants no. 1 to 4. They also set-up a Will dated 25.05.1988 stated to be executed by Bachan Singh in favour of defendants no. 1 to 3. Trial court accepted the prayer for amendment of written statement. 6. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that order passed by trial court is unsustainable. Though, there can be no doubt that amendment of written statement is on different footing than amendment of plaint yet defendants cannot be allowed to raise such pleas as would completely displace the case of the plaintiffs. In the instant case, amendment has been sought after 10 years of institution of suit and certain facts have been pleaded which would seriously affect the case of the plaintiffs. The Will in question is dated 25.05.1988. It is inexplicable why no reference was made to same when defendants filed their written statement in the year 2003. 7. Under the circumstances, impugned order is set-aside. Revision petition is allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------