R.R.YADAV, J. - (1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 19.2.94 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road in Original Civil Suit No. 251 of 1993 and Civil Misc. petition No. 32 of 1993 Ishwar Dass etc. v. Bhikh Singh etc. rejecting an application moved on behalf of the revisionist Under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC.
(2.) AGGRIEVED against the order dated 19.2.94 refusing an amendment application moved by the defendant -revisionist Under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, the revisionist has come in revision before this Court. Learned Counsel Mr. Prakash Tatia appearing on behalf of the defendant -revisionist urged before me that an admission made by a party in its written statement can be withdrawn or may be explained away. Thus, according to him the learned trial court has committed a jurisdictional error in refusing the amendment application Under Order VI Rule 17, CPC. According to Mr. Tatia, it cannot be said that by amendment, an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned Counsel Mr. Tatia placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in a case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km Jyoti Sahay and Anr. reported in : AIR1983SC462 .
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the revisionist's Counsel Mr. Tatia. It is true that alternative inconsistent pleas can be taken in pleadings but effect of substitution sought in the present case, is not making inconsistent an alternative plea but by way of amendment, the defendant -revisionist is seeking to displace the plaintiff -opposite -party, completely from the admission made by the defendant -revisionist in his written statement and if such amendments are allowed, the plaintiff -opposite -party will be prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendant -revisionist.;