R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 24.1.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, who declined the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for the reasons given in paras No. 7 and 8 of the judgment and these paras are reproduced as under :- "7. I have considered rival contentions raised by learned Counsel for parties and in order to appreciate the same, I have gone through the record of this case minutely. In order to arrive at just conclusion, this court has to peep into the facts giving a rise to the present case. Pritam Singh and other plaintiffs have filed this suit against defendants Harbhol Singh and others seeking decree of declaration to the effect that plaintiff No. 1 is joint owner in possession of the property in dispute to the extent of 1/3rd share and plaintiff No. 2 is joint owner in possession of the property in dispute to the extent of 2/9 share by virtue of sale deed dated 17.2.1998. In their written statement defendants had admitted the plaintiffs to be owners of the property in dispute but come up with a specific plea to the effect that about 15 years ago they had occupied it illegally and forcibly and they had constructed a room, kitchen, cattle shed, installed Toka Machine, manger by spending amount on the property in dispute and they had also placed their manure and cow dung cakes in the property in dispute. They had further asserted that the possession of the defendants over the property in dispute is illegal, hostile, uninterrupted, open to the knowledge of plaintiffs and general public and they claimed to have become owners of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. Though in the instant application, defendants want to rid of this plea and replace it with the plea that property in dispute is ancestral coparcenary property among the parties and they also want to add that Bachan Singh was not competent to will away the property in dispute to his wife Basant Kaur and it turn Bachan Kaur was not competent to suffer any decree in favour of Gurnam Kaur daughter of Bachan Singh and likewise Gurnam Kaur was not competent to alienate the property in dispute in favour of plaintiff No. 2. When plea now sought to be added by way of amendment is read in contrast with the plea taken by applicants/defendants earlier, it is self destructive, contradictory and without any basis. So much so this plea is not supported by any document prima facie. 8. In the light of above facts and circumstances, I have gone through the case law quoted by Mr. M.K. Bansal, Advocate, before me and it is pertinent to mention here that I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down in all the rulings quoted by Mr. M.K. Bansal, Advocate. On careful perusal of the rulings quoted by him, it is found that in all those cases the Hon'ble High Court was of considered view that plea sought to be added by defendants in those cases was not a new one, rather defendants had tried to elucidate the facts with the purpose of taking a definite plea. In the case in hand defendants want to withdraw the admission made by them in favour of plaintiffs, when they had set up a case of adverse possession. Thus, no benefit of law laid down in above referred cases can be extended to applicant/defendants. On the contrary the Hon'ble Apex Court in case referred as Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and others, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 140 (SC) : 1998(1) Civil Court Cases 1 (Supreme Court) was pleased to hold that if defendants want to withdraw admission by way of amendment, such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of plaintiffs and it would cause him irretrievable prejudice." I have heard Shri Jasbir Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that even a judicial admission can successfully be withdrawn. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgments reported as AIR 1983 S.C. 462, 1991 PLJ 65, 1992 PLJ 307 and 2000(2) PLJ 331. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Every case has to depend on its own facts. In the present case the earlier stand of the defendant was that he has become owner of the property in question by way of adverse possession as he is occupying the same for the last 15 years. So much so, the defendant averred that he has constructed a room, kitchen and cattle shed etc. Now he wants to take a somersault by saying that the property in dispute is ancestral co-parcenary property amongst the parties. Meaning thereby, the defendant is now alleging ownership by birth. Two pleas taken by the defendant are mutually destructive and cannot be allowed to be disadvantage of the plaintiff. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.;