THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5147 of 2009 ORDER: On allowing I.A.No.640 of 2000 in O.S.No.63 of 2008, filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.2 seeking amendment of the written statement filed by him, by the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapet, vide his order, dated 15.09.2009, the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In his affidavit, respondent No.1 stated that in the reply notice got issued by him on 06.06.2005, he denied the claim made by the plaintiffs in their legal notice and stated that his son, by name, Satyanarayana purchased 616 sq.yards of land in 1996 from Meesala Lakshminarayana and others and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. But, in the written statement, he stated that he purchased the said property instead of mentioning that his son purchased it and therefore, he sought to amend the written statement by filing I.A.No.640 of 2000. The Court below on observing that though the evidence was closed, the amendment as sought for by respondent No.1 was in consonance with the reply notice got issued by him wherein he stated that his son purchased the property and in effect, it forms part of the record, allowed the I.A. permitting respondent No.1 to amend the written statement. The Supreme Court in USHA BALASHAHEB SWAMI AND OTHERS v. KIRAN APPASO SWAMI AND OTHERS[1] having observed the principle relating to amendment of the written statement by 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, held that when the trial Court exercised its discretion and allowed the amendment of the written statement, the same should not be interfered with by the High Court in the revision and accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order passed by the trial Court. In view of the above-cited judgment, I see no ground to entertain this civil revision petition, as the impugned order does not suffer from any apparent error warranting interference by this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, it is always open for the petitioner to assert in the appeal that the said amendment changes the nature of pleadings, if, ultimately, the suit is decided against her on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 6th NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni [1] 2007(5) ALD 79 (SC)