S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This is plaintiffs' writ petition who have filed Original Suit No.222 of 1985 against contesting respondents for partition and for mandatory injunction. Petitioners have claimed that their share in the property in dispute is 1/4th. Some of the defendants filed written statement admitting some of the facts mentioned in the plaint. Thereafter those defendants filed application seeking amendment in the written statement. Trial court/Munsif, Mohamdabad District Ghazipur through order dated 11.2.1988 allowed the amendment application. Against the said order plaintiffs- petitioners filed Civil revision no. 49 of 1988 which was dismissed by District Judge, Ghazipur on 29.3.1988 hence this writ petition.
(2.) THE only ground taken in the amendment application was typing errors in the original written statement and that some essential facts had been omitted which required to be mentioned. In para-1 of the written statement part of para-1 of the plaint had been admitted. Through amendment word ''not' was asserted before the word ''admitted'. Similar amendments withdrawing admission were sought and allowed in paragraphs - 3, 5, 6 and 10 of the written statement. A new para as para 10-A was also added giving a new twist to the case of the defendants by pleading that Jasan Khan had no male issue and he was having only one daughter who was married to Rahat Khan hence Rahat Khan inherited the entire share of Jasan Khan. In the original written statement it was stated that only pedigree given in para-1 of the plaint is admitted rest of the allegations are denied. Through the amendment the word ''only' was deleted and the word ''not' was added before the word admitted. In this manner the pedigree which had earlier been categorically admitted was denied through amendment.
(3.) IN the following case the Supreme Court held that even admission in the written statement could be withdrawn. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1498 "Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa".;