JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Challenge is made to the order dated 21.1.2004 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal in Title Suit No.117 of 1999, vide Annexure-2, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the defendant-opposite party no.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was rejected. 2. Heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite party no.1. 3. The opposite party no.1 as the plaintiff laid a suit for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of ‘A’ schedule land and recovery of possession in respect of ‘B’ schedule land, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to come over the suit land in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal, which is registered as T.S. No.117 of 1999. The petitioner, who was defendant no.1 in the suit, entered appearance and filed written statement. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application on 21.1.2004 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement, vide Annexure-1. By the proposed amendment, defendant no.1 raised the plea that he has acquired title of the suit land by adverse possession. The same was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that defendant no.1 was not sure of his own stand in the suit. Plea of adverse possession was required to be pleaded at the earliest opportunity and not later. Allowing the prayer at this stage which caused prejudice to the plaintiff. 4. It is indeed correct that the defendant no.1 could have taken alternative plea of adverse possession while filing the written statement. Although such a plea was not taken, but the defendant no.1 sought to amend the written statement before the suit was taken up for hearing. An alternative and inconsistent plea can be taken, if the character of defence taken is not completely changed. It is trite that prayer for amendment of written statement should not be considered with the same rigour and strictness as prayer for amendment of the plaint. Delay by itself is not a sufficient ground to disallow the amendment as has been held by a Bench of this Court in the case of Bhaskar Chandra Behera and others v. Ranital Rice Mill & Company represented by Shri Umesh Chandra Sathia and others, 54 (1984) CLT 375. 5. Delay by itself is not a sufficient ground to disallow the amendment as has been held by a Bench of this Court in the case of Bhaskar Chandra Behera and others v. Ranital Rice Mill & Company represented by Shri Umesh Chandra Sathia and others, 54 (1984) CLT 375. 5. In view of the same, the order dated 21.1.2004 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal in Title Suit No.117 of 1999 vide Annexure-2 is hereby quashed. The proposed amendment is allowed. Since the suit is of the year 1999, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the hearing of the suit by end of December, 2015. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.