THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1380 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.110 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy District. In this revision purportedly filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it seeks to assail the correctness of the order, dated 20.01.2009, dismissing I.A.No.1609 of 2008 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to amend the written statement by adding paragraph 9-A as stated therein. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondents herein have filed O.S.No.110 of 2008 for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed written statement. The trial of the suit has not yet commenced. However, realizing certain mistakes, which have crept in, and to explain in more proper way, I.A.No.1609 of 2008 has been filed seeking amendment of the written statement by adding para 9-A and deleting certain expressions. The Court below taking into account the fact that the amendment sought to be introduced runs contrary to the earlier plea, which virtually takes away the admission on the part of the petitioner, did not find favour and dismissed the same. Hence, this revision. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused of the material, it is seen that the only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to seek amendment as sought for. There is no dispute to the fact that the suit is one for injunction and the trial has not yet commenced. Both the parties have claimed right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Now in the present application, the amendment is sought to the written statement, which is filed earlier, in order to correct certain mistakes, which have crept in, apart from explaining in detail the title as well. If all these aspects are taken together, such expressions would not have any effect at all or they go against the petitioner and respondents. Even on a perusal of the allegation, it does not amount to admission as such in respect of the possession but it is only a description of the property. Location and topography of the property cannot change its existence because of some admissions here and there. Necessarily, it has to be proved either with the proper evidence or by making local inspection or otherwise. Therefore, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents, which has been upheld by the Court below to the effect that the plea, which is now sought to be ushered, runs contrary to and is not in consonance with the earlier plea and virtually washes out the admission, cannot be accepted. However, it is now well established that the parameters, which are applicable for seeking amendment to a pleading filed by the plaintiff, would not apply to that of the defendant. The defendant is always at liberty to take such inconsistent pleas. In view of the same, the Court below is not correct in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1609 of 2008 in O.S.No.110 of 2008 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J Dt: 21.01.2011. kdl