[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITIONNO. 6115 OF 2007 RAGHUNATH MARUTI HIRVE ... PETITIONER. VS. KRISHNA LAXMAN HIRVE & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS. MR. VIVEK SALUNKE I/B. P.B.SHAH FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. RAHUL S. KATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : June 3, 2008. : June 3, 2008. : June 3, 2008. P.C. 1. This petition has been filed impugning the interlocutory order dated 26th June, 2007 of Civil Judge, J.D., Baramati, whereby the application for amendment to the written statement of the petitioner came to be refused. 2. The suit is filed by respondents 1 to 3 for partition and possession. By the amendment the petitioner, who is the defendant No. 16 in the suit, wants to delete certain portions in his written statement wherein a plea has been taken that the petitioner has become owner of part of the the properties by adverse possession. The petitioner in the written statement has also averred that be became the owner of the said properties by virtue of the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands [ 2 ] Act. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in case of (1) AKSHAYA (1) AKSHAYA (1) AKSHAYA RESTAURANT RESTAURANT RESTAURANT VS. VS. VS. P. ANIANAPPA reported in 1995 Supp (2) P. ANIANAPPA reported in 1995 Supp (2) P. ANIANAPPA reported in 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Supreme Supreme Court Cases 303; (2) BALDEV SINGH AND ORS. Court Cases 303; (2) BALDEV SINGH AND ORS. Court Cases 303; (2) BALDEV SINGH AND ORS. VS. VS. VS. MANOHAR SINGH AND ANR., reported in (2006) 6 SCC MANOHAR SINGH AND ANR., reported in (2006) 6 SCC MANOHAR SINGH AND ANR., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498 498 498 and (3) ESTRALLA RUBBER VS. DASS ESTATE (P) LTD., and (3) ESTRALLA RUBBER VS. DASS ESTATE (P) LTD., and (3) ESTRALLA RUBBER VS. DASS ESTATE (P) LTD., reported reported reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97. in (2001) 8 SCC 97. in (2001) 8 SCC 97. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court as inconsistent pleas can be taken in the written statement He further submitted that in case of BALDEVSINGH BALDEVSINGH BALDEVSINGH (supra) the Supreme Court has allowed the substitution of the defence and the Supreme Court has held that the High Court and the Trial court had gone wrong in holding that the defendant-appellants are not allowed to take inconsistent pleas in their defence. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition and relied upon a decision in case of BHARAT BHARAT BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. PRECIOUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. PRECIOUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. PRECIOUS FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., reported in 2007(1) MH. INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., reported in 2007(1) MH. INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., reported in 2007(1) MH. L.J. L.J. L.J. 331. 331. 331. He has invited my attention to paragraph No. 33 (xii) and (xvi) of that decision wherein this Court has held that the defendant can take alternative pleas in defence only if by the proposed amendment the other party is not be subjected to injustice and that [ 3 ] any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn and it should not result in defeating a legal right accruing to the plaintiff on account of lapse of time. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the instant case, if amendment is allowed, the admission of the petitioner in the written statement that he has become owner by adverse possession, whereby in a sense admitting the title of the respondent, will result in prejudice to the respondent. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the impugned order and material on record. I find that in the original written statement of the petitioner both the pleas viz. plea of ownership by adverse possession as well as ownership by virtue of the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has been taken. The petitioner now wants to delete his plea regarding ownership by way of adverse possession by way of amendment. In my view, interest of justice would be served if both the pleas taken by the petitioner are taken as alternative pleas and it would be left to the choice of the petitioner on which plea he wants to lead evidence and it is not necessary that the written statement should be amended. 5. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed of. [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]