C.R. No.888 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.888 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.2.2008 Shera @ Sher Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Smt.Suresh Devi @ Suresh Kumari ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.J.V. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision is, to an order dated 11.1.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for amendment has been incorrectly declined. A defendant, can take alternative or inconsistent pleas, provided he is able to furnish suitable explanation for the alleged inconsistency. It is further asserted that the learned trial Court's reasoning that the plea now sought to be raised is contrary to the plea taken in the plaint filed by the petitioner in Civil Suit No.37 of 22.1.1982, titled as `Shera V. Hukma', is entirely irrelevant. The said fact should have been considered after the amendment and not prior thereto. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. As the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law and is neither perverse or arbitrary, it does not call for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the C.R. No.888 of 2008 2 Constitution. The learned trial Court, rightly held that the plea now sought to be raised by the petitioner, not only contradicts the averments in the written statement but also contradicts the petitioner's assertions in the plaint filed in Civil Suit No.37 of 22.1.1982. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application for amendment. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. 15.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE