1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON WRIT PETITION NO.6624 OF 2010 Skyline Millers Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s Ashwin Tulsibhai Patel & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Anjali Chandurkar with Ms.Akanksha Thakkar for the Petitioners. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 24th September, 2010. P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th December, 2009 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, below Exh.21 in Special Civil Suit No. 132 of 2008. By that judgment, learned trial Judge allowed the application made by the Respondents-original Defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Heard Ms.Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners. She submitted that Respondents-Defendants had filed written statement some time in the month of March, 2008. After considering the written statement-cum-say to the application for interim order, this Court by order dated 21st October, 2008 directed the Respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land during the pendency of the appeal from order. It is only thereafter the Respondents took out present application for amendment of the written statement. She submitted that in the proposed amendment Respondents have taken altogether a different and contradictory stand as compared to the stand taken 2 by them in the written statement. She therefore submitted that the impugned order permitting the amendment is liable to be set aside. 3. I have considered submissions advanced by the learned counsel. Comparison of the written statement filed by the Respondents and the application at Exh.21, in my opinion, does not substantiate the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. In my opinion, the Respondents have given better particulars of their defence as observed by learned trial Judge in the impugned order and in particular paragraph No.10. The proposed amendment does not change the basic stand taken by the Respondents in the written statement. Since the order is of interlocutory nature, no interference is called for. Even otherwise the Apex Court in the case of Usha V/s.Kiran, 2007 (5) Mh.L.J.593, has laid down that as a general principle, amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim which is applicable to amendments to plaint. It has no counter part in the principles relating to amendment of written statement. Therefore, 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. Hence the petition stands dismissed. (R.G.Ketkar, J.)