IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 275 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.10.2011 Darshan Lal ... Petitioner Versus Promod Kumar and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. N.K. Sood and Mr. Aman Sood, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner/defendant No. 1 against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Sunder Nagar, dated 19.7.2011, vide which the application filed by petitioner/ defendant No. 1 for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the contesting respondents No. 1 to 4 only. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 4. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner shows that he wanted to add Para No. 6(a) and amend the written 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 statement filed by him by taking the plea that the construction was raised, which was objected to by the plaintiff and the defendants continued with the construction and as such, defendant No. 1 has become owner by way of adverse possession and has also become exclusive owner in possession of the entire suit property. 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court shows that the application was dismissed mainly on the ground that the plea is contradictory to the plea taken by the defendants in the earlier written statement filed on 3.1.2002 and, therefore, it was observed that the defendants seek to withdraw admission made by them in the earlier pleadings. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. 6. It is clear from the application filed by the defendants as well as the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court that only objection was that the plea was contradictory and the defendants cannot take the contradictory plea. The plea in the alternative can be taken by the defendants in the written statement and in case, it amounts to withdrawal of the admission made, that plea can also be taken by the plaintiff during the course of hearing and at the time of submission of final hearing at the conclusion of the trial. However, the application for amendment cannot be rejected on this ground. 7. The suit was filed in the year 2001, written statement was filed in the year 2002, the present application was filed by the defendants after the plaintiff has closed his evidence in the year 2006 and was dismissed keeping in view the fact that this application was filed at a belated stage, when the plaintiff had already closed his evidence and fresh issues may have to be framed and the parties may have to lead fresh evidence also. Therefore, the application is allowed 3 subject to ` 1000/- as costs payable to the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The defendant shall be permitted to file the amended written statement and the plaintiff shall be permitted to file replication and thereafter issues shall be framed and the learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. Keeping in view the fact that this case is of the year 2001 and a prayer has been made by both the parties counsel for early disposal of the matter, the learned trial Court is required to take steps to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date fixed for hearing of the case. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to put up their appearance before the learned trial Court on 31st October, 2011. A copy of the judgment alongwith record be sent to the learned trial Court so as to reach it before the date fixed. 8. In view of the above, the petition stands allowed accordingly and all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim order stands vacated. ( V.K. Ahuja ), October 12, 2011 Judge (BSS)