evidence was not started. Case of the plaintiffs is not adversely effected, no prejudice is caused in case the amendment is allowed and when the matter is being prepared for evidence then only clerical error and other facts were noticed. Learned counsel submits that as the plaintiffs' evidence is not yet started they may be permitted to amend their written statement. The provision under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is not mandatory rather directive. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (2007) 6 SCC 167, Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank NV & Ors. , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court despite delay in filing the application and other facts allowed the amendment application. He further placed reliance on (2006) 6 SCC 498, Baldev Singh and Others vs. Manohar Singh and Anr., wherein also the Hon. Apex Court held that inconsistent defences can be raised in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in case of plaint. The Apex Court further held that even after the delay of three years in filing the application for amending written statement, the said application cannot be rejected without any serious prejudice has been shown to cause the plaintiff so as to take away any acrude right. Further placed reliance on (2007) 5 SCC 602, Usha Balashaheb Swami and others vs. Kiran Appao Swami and others , wherein the Hon. Apex Court held that in addition of new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in written statement can be allowed as long as the amended pleadings do not result in causing grave injustice and irretrievable prejudice to plaintiff or displacing him completely. Learned counsel would further submits that on the basis of principles reiterated by the Apex Court, evidence is yet to be started no prejudice is caused, the Court below be directed to allow the petition by allowing the instant petition.
