ORDER : The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judge on I.A.No.6 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.150/2014 by alleging that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 has executed an agreement for sale on 22.01.2010 for sale consideration of Rs.7,06,815/-. It is also alleged in the plaint that, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid as earnest money. The present petitioners on receipt of summons contested the proceedings by filing written statement and stoutly denied the very execution of the suit agreement in favour of respondent/plaintiff. During the trial, it appears when the matter was posted for cross-examination of respondent/plaintiff, the petitioners noticed that there is a material alteration in the suit agreement. Having noticed this material alteration, the present petitioners sought for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the alleged material alteration appearing in the suit agreement. The said application was strongly resisted by the respondent/plaintiff. The learned Judge on the sole ground that, since the trial has commenced has proceeded to reject the prayer sought for by the petitioners herein to seek amendment of written statement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners today placed on record the alleged suit agreement. Placing reliance on the suit agreement he would submit to this court that the alleged document is tampered and there are serious material alterations and thereby the petitioners are intending to incorporate these material alterations by way of amendment of written statement. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would vehemently argue and contend before this court that the order passed by the learned Judge is in accordance with law and thereby the order under challenge does not warrant any interference by this court. He would further submit that the proposed amendment sought in the written statement is afterthought and the petitioners are intending to drag on the matter. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the suit agreement. 6. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract by alleging that husband of petitioner No.1 has executed a suit agreement on 22.01.2010. In the suit agreement, on the last page, prima facie it appears there is some material alteration in regard to the year. 6. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract by alleging that husband of petitioner No.1 has executed a suit agreement on 22.01.2010. In the suit agreement, on the last page, prima facie it appears there is some material alteration in regard to the year. Having noticed this material alteration, the present petitioners sought for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the alleged material alteration appearing in the suit agreement. The learned Judge has rejected the application on the premise that, since the trial has commenced, amendment of written statement is not permissible. This finding according to me is palpably erroneous and the learned Judge has lost sight of the material fact that principles and yardstick applicable to the averments in the plaint cannot be strictly applied when an amendment is sought to the written statement. On examination of the grounds urged in the writ petition and also having examined the prima facie material, this court is of the view that proposed amendment is very much essential for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. The proposed amendment would not affect basic structure of plaintiff’s case. Present petitioners have denied the suit agreement and thereby defendants are not intending substitute new defence. It is also a trite law that defendants have liberty to raise conflicting defences. If this amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. It is always open for the respondent/plaintiff to counter the same by filing rejoinder. Further, plaintiff will not taken by surprise since petitioners/defendants are yet to commence with their ocular evidence. 7. The respondent/plaintiff has every opportunity when petitioners/defendants lead ocular evidence. All these significant details are not dealt by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has adopted hyper technical approach and has rejected the application. The order under challenge is not sustainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER The writ petition is allowed. I.A.No.6 filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC is allowed. The petitioners/defendants are permitted to incorporate the proposed amendment in the written statement. It is open for the respondent/plaintiff to file rejoinder to the proposed amendment in the written statement.