- (1.) HEARD Sri H.L.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner was defendant in Suit No. 198 of 1992, which was decreed by the trial court on 28.11.2008. He is aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2008 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Aligarh, whereby his amendment application No. 33Ka-1/34Ga-2 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the only amendment sought was in paragraph 7 of the written statement, whereby the word 'not' was mistakenly not typed and hence the amendment was sought before the First Appellate Court when this typographical error came to the notice of the defendant-appellant. According to him the allegations in the plaint were not admitted by the defendant but due to said typographical error in paragraph 7 of the written statement the word 'not' could not be typed. He therefore, states that the amendment application has been illegally rejected by the court below.
(3.) HAVING considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, it appears that by the order dated 27.7.2010, the appellate court has rejected the application for amendment made to amend the written statement by the defendant-appellant on the ground that once an admission has been made by the party at an earlier stage, he cannot withdraw such admission and place the other party to a disadvantage. The averment in paragraph 7 of the plaint related to situation of the property. This was admitted in paragraph 7 of the written statement. The reason given in the impugned order is in accordance with law and it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the same.;