ORDER : P. Devadass, J. 1. This matter arises out of the order passed by learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, dismissing I.A. No. 59 of 2015 in O.S. No. 460 of 2013. The said suit is for partition. Long back pleadings were completed. Now the suit has become part-heard. At this juncture, the 2nd defendant filed I.A. No. 59 of 2015 seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement. It was opposed to by the plaintiff. 2. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, concluded that it is belated because it was filed after two years. Further, it is observed that although inconsistent plea can be set up, a plea in destruction of the earlier pleas cannot be permitted. Thus, the Trial Court refused to receive the additional written statement and dismissed the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that a reading of the written statement and additional written statement would show that the 2nd defendant is not deviating from his earlier stand taken in the additional written statement. In view of the stand taken by the plaintiff during trial and after verification of revenue records, it has become necessary for the 2nd defendant to raise the additional pleadings. In such circumstances, delay shall not defeat his case being brought to the notice of the Court. Such leave cannot be denied on technical grounds. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners will found fault with the impugned order of the Trial Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the 2nd defendant came forward with a new plead and it would twist the course of the case and trial. He wants to completely erase his plea set up in the written statement and now he comes with fresh pleadings through his additional written statement. 5. The 2nd defendant also questioned the very existence of Item Nos. 2 to 6. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. Thus, he would say that the impugned order is not faulty. 6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel cited the following rulings: i. Muthiah Mudaliar v. Dhandapani Mudaliar, 1986 (2) MLJ 403 , and ii. Devanbu v. Sundara Raj, [2008 (1) CTC 563]. 7. 2 to 6. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. Thus, he would say that the impugned order is not faulty. 6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel cited the following rulings: i. Muthiah Mudaliar v. Dhandapani Mudaliar, 1986 (2) MLJ 403 , and ii. Devanbu v. Sundara Raj, [2008 (1) CTC 563]. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these rulings are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record, the impugned order and also the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Pleadings can be amended at any time, but before pronouncing Judgment. Even it can be amended at the stage of appeal also, but that does not mean that the party can amend the pleadings when rights have been accrued to the other party in the course of trial, but that does not mean that they can do it with any secret-agenda, namely, to delay the trial. But, at the same time, in a leave petition filed for amendment of pleadings, cases should not be decided fully. There cannot be a trial, namely, in I.A., itself everything should not be decided. Cases should be decided on main path, but not on side paths. But, at the same time, under the guise of amendment of pleadings altogether a new plea cannot be allowed to set up. It would prejudice the other side. If such prejudice can be neutralized, it can be done. These are all age-old principles. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent also expound the principles, which have already stated in a concise form. 10. The suit is for partition of certain extent of properties, namely, Item Nos. 1 to 8. Plaintiff set out his case and sought the relief of partition. The 2nd defendant traced history in his own way with regard to 80 Cents and also speaks about certain partition taken within his family members and he set-forth a plea of partition already taken and no property is available for partition with regard to first item in Survey No. 571/3. In his written statement, he has also dwelt about Item Nos. 2 to 6. With these pleadings issues were raised and parties went on trial. 11. Now, P.W. 1 is in witness box. In his written statement, he has also dwelt about Item Nos. 2 to 6. With these pleadings issues were raised and parties went on trial. 11. Now, P.W. 1 is in witness box. He is being cross-examined by the defendants. At this juncture, the 2nd defendant filed a petition seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement. 12. 2nd defendant avers that in the light of the evidence adduced by P.W. 1, now it has become necessary for him to putforth his version as regards the alleged sub-division of Survey No. 571/3 and further the very existence of Item Nos. 2 to 6 itself is doubtful. Now, he wants to raise these aspects by way of additional pleadings. 13. It is the contention of the respondent that this is altogether a new plea/case. The 2nd defendant wants to bid farewell to his earlier pleadings. However, the 2nd defendant would contend that it is not deviate from his case. The additional pleadings are in continuation of the earlier written statement. Further, the very occasion for filing additional written statement arose because of the evidence adduced by P.W. 1. Therefore, in the circumstances, the revision petitioner cannot be criticized as a latecomer in filing additional written statement. 14. As these issues goes to the very route of the matter and as it touches upon the very version and counter version with regard to the Item Nos. 1 to 6, are fit to be decided in the suit and it cannot be answered in an interlocutory application. If these pleadings in the additional written statement were not allowed to set up, then it will create complications. In such circumstances, the technical grounds cannot stand in the way of 2nd defendant setting forth his version of the case. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd defendant has to sharpen his wisdom because of the stand taken by the plaintiff/P.W. 1 in the witness box, otherwise he will be doomed. 15. In the circumstances, it is ordered as under: (i) the impugned order and decreetal order, dated 01.04.2015, passed in I.A. No. 59 of 2015 in O.S. No. 460 of 2013, by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, are set aside. (ii) I.A. No. 59 of 2015 is allowed. (iii) the Trial Court will receive the additional written statement. 15. In the circumstances, it is ordered as under: (i) the impugned order and decreetal order, dated 01.04.2015, passed in I.A. No. 59 of 2015 in O.S. No. 460 of 2013, by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, are set aside. (ii) I.A. No. 59 of 2015 is allowed. (iii) the Trial Court will receive the additional written statement. (iv) the Trial Court also will give opportunity to the plaintiff to file his reply statement, if any. (v) on completion of this exercise, if the Trial Court finds occasion to raise additional issues on the material proposition of facts and law, it can raise. (vi) Thereafter, the Trial Court will proceed to dispose of the suit at an early date, preferably within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.