1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON WRIT PETITION NO.7081 OF 2010 Shri.Ramchandra Vitthal Jadhav .. Petitioner V/s Shri.Ganapati Shankar Jadhav & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.T.S.Ingale for the Petitioner. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 24th September, 2010. P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 12th July, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Shirala below Exh. 44 in R.C.Suit No.46 of 2005. By that order, learned trial Judge rejected application made by the petitioner – original plaintiff for amendment in the plaint. The application was made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Petitioner instituted suit for perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents, as also for declaration that he became owner on the strength of agreement of sale dated 29th April, 1974. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner took out application at Exh.44 contending interalia that in the event the court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has not become owner on the basis of agreement dated 29th April, 1974, in the alternate, it may be declared that he became owner by adverse possession. 3. By the impugned order, learned trial Judge rejected application on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff has raised inconsistent plea with his earlier plea. In my opinion, the learned trial Judge has not 2 committed any error in rejecting the application. 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. 4. In view of this, in my opinion, learned trial Judge was right in observing that the proposed amendment raised inconsistent plea with his plea in the plaint. No interference is called for with the impugned order. Petition is rejected. (R.G.Ketkar, J.)