JUDGMENT : Shri Dayaram Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri A. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Neeraj Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14-2-2018 passed by the First Additional District Judge to Link Court 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal thereby dismissing the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract. On receiving the summons of the suit, the petitioners have filed the written statement and also filed counter claim. During pendency of the said civil suit, one Shri Sanjeev Upadhyay, who was authorized on behalf of respondent No. 1 has received Rs. 30,000,00/- on behalf of respondent No. 1 from the petitioners on 20-10-2015 and issued the acknowledgment in favour of the petitioners. During pendency of the said civil suit, the counsel for the petitioners has issued the registered notice to respondent No. 1 requested for executing the sale-deed within a period of seven days. As the said instance has occurred during pendency of the said civil suit, the petitioners, therefore, filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment in the written statement as well as in the counter claim. Respondent No. 1 file reply to the said amendment application, denying the allegations made in the application. The trial Court passed an order dated 14-2-2018 thereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners on the ground that the affidavit and receipt of Rs. 30,000,00/-was not filed along with the application and it appears that the amendment application has been filed with a intention to delay the trial. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the amendment application preferred by the petitioners. He submits that the principles which are applicable in case of amendment in the plaint, are not applicable in the case of written statement. He further submits that the amendment is based on subsequent event which is necessary for the just and proper decision of the case. He submits that the principles which are applicable in case of amendment in the plaint, are not applicable in the case of written statement. He further submits that the amendment is based on subsequent event which is necessary for the just and proper decision of the case. He further submits that instead of rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners for not filing the affidavit as well as acknowledgment sometime should have been given by the trial Court for filing those documents. He further submits that by way of proposed amendment the nature of suit is not going to be changed. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ajit Singh v. Devesh Pratap Singh, reported in 2018 (1) M.P.L.J. 374 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the order passed by the trial Court and submits that the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioners. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, respondent No. 1 has filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract. During pendency of the said civil suit, it has been alleged by the petitioners that respondent No. 1 has authorized one Shri Sanjay Upadhyay to receive the amount of Rs. 30,000,00/- on behalf of respondent No. 1 from the petitioners. The said amount was paid on 20-10-2015 and the acknowledgment was also issued in favour of the petitioners, therefore, petitioners have filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment in the written statement. However, the said application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that no affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in support of the said application as well as copy of the acknowledgment has also not been filed. It appears that the proposed amendment has sought to be made with intention to delay the trial. 7. This Court in the case of Ajit Singh (supra) in para 10 has held as under:— 10. So far as, amendment in the written statement is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain (supra) in paragraphs 13 and 14 has held as under:— “13. 7. This Court in the case of Ajit Singh (supra) in para 10 has held as under:— 10. So far as, amendment in the written statement is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain (supra) in paragraphs 13 and 14 has held as under:— “13. At this stage, we may remind outselves that law is now well settled that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. “15.……… Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action” (See Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, SCC p. 504, para 15.) Similar view has also been expressed in Usha Balashahed Swami v. Kiran Appasa Swami, (2007) 5 SCC 602 : AIR 2007 SC 1663 . 14. It is equally well settled that (SCC p.609, para 22) in the case of an amendment of a written statement, “the Courts would be more liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can also be allowed.” 8. Thus, as per the said judgment, the principles which are applicable for amendment in the plaint would not be applicable in the written statement. It is also to be noted that the proposed amendment is based on subsequent event which occurred during pendency of the said civil suit. So far as, filing of affidavit is concerned, the trial Court should have granted an opportunity to the petitioners to file such an affidavit in support of the application for amendment. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The impugned order 14-2-2018 High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the application submitted by the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is allowed. Certified copy as per rules. Petition allowed.