JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 27.7.2018 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (II), Amb in CMA No. 49 of 2013 of Civil Suit No. 49 of 2013 (Annexure P-4), vide which while allowing an application filed by respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, learned Court below has not given any opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to file written statement to the amended plaint. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:- Respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendants from forcibly ousting and dismantling the rooms constructed over the suit land. It appears from the record that despite opportunities having been granted to the petitioner/defendant by the Court, no written statement was filed and in these circumstances the defence of the petitioner/defendant was struck off. Said order was assailed by the petitioner/defendant before this Court, but despite opportunity having been granted by this Court to file written statement subject to payment of cost, again petitioner/defendant failed to file any written statement and his defence was again struck off. During the pendency of the suit, respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for the amendment of the plaint, which stood allowed by learned court below vide the impugned order. However, while allowing the application for amendment of the plaint, no opportunity has been given by learned court below to the petitioner to file reply to the amended written statement, hence this petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. 4. It is a matter of record that despite several opportunities having been granted to the petitioner, no written statement was filed by him to the civil suit. When his defence was struck off, he approached this Court and as a matter of indulgence, an opportunity was granted to him to file written statement subject to payment of cost, yet he did not file any written statement and his defence was again struck off. This is what has weighed with the learned trial court while denying opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to file written statement to the amended plaint. 5. This is what has weighed with the learned trial court while denying opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to file written statement to the amended plaint. 5. In my considered view, the order passed by learned court below, whereby it has refused to grant opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to file reply to the amended written statement is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The right of the petitioner/defendant to file written statement qua the original plaint stands struck off. However, post amendment of the plaint, the amendments which stand incorporated in the plaint, are a new cause and the defendant has a right to file his written statement to the same. However, in the garb of this he cannot be permitted to file written statement to the original contents of the plaint. In other others, even after the amendment of the plaint, though the plaintiff has no right to file written statement qua those contents which earlier also were there in the unamended plaint, however, he has a right to file written statement qua those contents of the plaint, which stand introduced post amendment. This important aspect of the matter has been ignored by learned court below and therefore, the impugned order to this extent is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed and disposed of with the direction that petitioner/defendant shall have the right, in accordance with law, to file written statement to the amended plaint to the extent it contains averments newly introduced post amendment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.