ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and he is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court dated 27.07.2017 rejecting the application, I.A.No.11, preferred under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 3. The Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the present application amounts to inventing a new ground of defence and it does not amount of elaboration and that too the same is filed after the death of defendant No.7, which creates a suspicion. Further held that as recording of evidence has already commenced, the application is barred by the proviso. 4. Prima facie the reasoning rendered by the Court below is unsustainable. The Trial Court has failed to see that the amendment, is sought in respect of a written statement and the law as to whether the amendment of a plaint and the amendment of written statement do not stand on a similar footing is no more res-integra. Further, the Trial Court erred in rendering a finding on the merits of the proposed amendment itself. On both these counts, the impugned order is contrary to the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. In the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, reported in (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 602, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold as follows:- “19. It is equally well-settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. 20. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. 20. Such being the settled law, we must hold that in the case of amendment of a written statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case (see B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh). Even the decision relied on by the plaintiff in Modi Spg. clearly recognises that inconsistent pleas can be taken in the pleadings. In this context, we may also refer to the decision of this Court in Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary. In that case, the defendant had initially taken up the stand that he was a joint tenant along with others. Subsequently, he submitted that he was a licensee for monetary consideration who was deemed to be a tenant as per the provisions of Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. This Court held that the defendant could have validly taken such an inconsistent defence. While allowing the amendment of the written statement, this Court observed in Basavan Jaggu Dhobi's case as follows: (SCC p.180 para 3) "3. As regards the first contention, we are afraid that the courts below have gone wrong in holding that it is not open to the defendant to amend his written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by taking a contrary stand than what was stated originally in the written statement. This is opposed to the settled law. It is open to a defendant to take even contrary stands or contradictory stands, thereby the cause of action is not in any manner affected. That will apply only to a case of the plaint being amended so as to introduce a new cause of action." 21. This is opposed to the settled law. It is open to a defendant to take even contrary stands or contradictory stands, thereby the cause of action is not in any manner affected. That will apply only to a case of the plaint being amended so as to introduce a new cause of action." 21. As we have already noted herein earlier that in allowing the amendment of the written statement a liberal approach is a general view when admittedly in the event of allowing the amendment the other party can be compensated in money. Technicality of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. this Court observed "that the Courts are more generous in allowing amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event". In that case this Court also held "that the defendant has right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment the other side should not be subjected to serious injustice." 22. Keeping these principles in mind, namely, that in a case of 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, we may now proceed to consider whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. 6. In the case of Rajakumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chandra Bhatia reported in 2018 (2) Supreme Court Cases 87, in the first case stated supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to held as follows:- “12. This being the position, the case which was sought to be set up in the proposed amendment was an elaboration of what was stated in the written statement. The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. In Sadhna Lodh v National Insurance Company Ltd., this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227. Allowing the amendment would not amount to the withdrawal of an admission contained in the written statement (as submitted by the respondent) since the amendment sought to elaborate upon an existing defence. It would also be necessary to note that it was on 21.09.2013 that an amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court, following which the appellant had filed a written statement to the amended plaint incorporating its defence. The amendment would cause no prejudice to the Plaintiff. 13. In the view which we have taken, it has not become necessary to consider the alternative submission of the appellant, namely, that recourse taken to the jurisdiction under Article 227 by the respondent after filing an application for review before the Trial Court was misconceived. Since the matter has been argued on merits, we have dealt with the rival submissions. 14. Hence, on a conspectus of the facts and having due regard to the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 227 which the High Court purported to exercise, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable. Since the matter has been argued on merits, we have dealt with the rival submissions. 14. Hence, on a conspectus of the facts and having due regard to the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 227 which the High Court purported to exercise, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The order passed by the Trial Court allowing the amendment of the written statement is accordingly affirmed.” 7. In that view of the matter, the petition is entitled to succeed accordingly. The writ petition is partly allowed. 8. The order impugned is set aside. The application, I.A.No.11 is remitted back to the Trial Court for re-consideration and disposal afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as reported in 2007 (5) SCC 602 and 2018 (2) SCC 87 . 9. In view of the above, there shall be no order as to costs.