- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 23-7-1999 passed by respondent No. 1 al lowing the revision and rejecting the ap plication for amendment filed by the defendant-petitioners.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner with the allegations that they were owners and landlords of House No. 23/29, Mohalla Chitgra Ghanta Ki Gali, Chowk, Varanasi wherein there is a Kothri in which deity is installed of which defendant No. 2 is in service. THE petitioners filed written state ment and in paragraph 1 of the written statement they asserted that they have no knowledge with regard to ownership of the property of the plaintiff. In paragraph 25 of the written statement it was stated that the defendants have no knowledge as to how the petitioners are owners of the property but without going into the con troversy they alleged that they were admit ting the plaintiffs as owners of the proper ty- Subsequently, the defendant-petitioners filed an application for amend ment of the written statement wherein they stated that they have come to know of the decisions in Suit No. 45 of 1968 and in Appeal No. 80of 1971 and according to the said decisions the plaintiffs were not owners of the property in question. They sought amendment in paragraph 1 and 25 of the written statement. The trial Court allowed the application on 6-5-1997. The plaintiff-respondents filed revision. The revisional Court has allowed the revision by the impugned order dated 23-7-1999 on tire ground that the petitioner having once admitted, they cannot now withdraw their admission. Ave learned counsel for the par ties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their admission if they can explain their admission and the reasons under which they had made such admission. He has placed reliance upon the decision Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 SC 462, wherein it was held that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. Learned counsel for the respon dents has placed reliance upon the decision Mis. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. , and another v. M/s Ladha Ram and Co. , AIR 1977 SC 680, wherein it was observed that the amendment intro ducing entirely different new case and seeking to displace the plaintiff complete ly from admissions made by defendants in written statement, should not be per mitted. In Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and others, AIR 1998 SC 618, it was held that the amendment should not be permitted to displace the plaintiff's case and his right to get preliminary partition decree. In this case the suit was filed for partition wherein the defendants had admitted 7 out of 10 properties were joint family property and subsequently sought amendment of the written statement withdrawing earlier ad mission made by them in regard to 7 properties. In these circumstances the Court did not permit the defendants to withdraw their admission. In the facts of the present case the petitioners in the writ ten statement had categorically stated that they had no knowledge in regard to the rights of the property. In paragraph 25 of the written statement they had asserted again this fact but it was further stated that for the purpose of the case they were ad mitting the petitioners as owners and ' landlord of the property. They had filed application for amendment on the ground that the matter was decided by the Civil Court and in those decisions the petitioner was not held owner of this property and in view of this judgment the amendment was sought to be made.;