- (1.) Defendants-applicants by means of this revision have challenged the order dated 29th January, 1987, passed by the trial court by virtue of which part of amendment to the written statement was rejected.
(2.) According to the applicants as also referred to in the application for amendment that later on it was found that by mistake the clause of specific denial and admission of the facts of specific defence has not been mentioned in the written statement, the written statement needs proper amendment; and the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit but is essential to elaborate the existing contention of the written statement. On the other hand, on behalf of plaintiff-respondent it was urged that by means of proposed amendment the defendants want to wriggle out of the admissions and, therefore, rejection of the part of the proposed amendment was justified and does not call for any interference.
(3.) The first leg of argument in this regard by the respondent is that the earlier written statement did not specifically deny the averments made in the plaint and thus under Order V III, Rule 5, C.P.C. it shall be treated to be admitted, and permitting now to amend the written statement would amount to permitting the defendants to resile from the admissions made in the written statement. Consequently, the defendants having admitted the revival agreement of the alleged loan within period of limitation now by proposed amendment want to deny, which would amount to withdrawal of t he admission and it would prejudicially affect the plaintiff and thus refusal of the proposed amendment was justified.;