- (1.) Instant revision impugns the order dated December 6, 1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ladnu, whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) moved under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed.
(2.) Brief re'sume' of the facts is that the plaintiff submitted an application in the trial Court under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. to the effect that he does not want to press paras Nos. 6 and 7 ka, kha, ga, gha, da, cha, and chha and wants to amend para No. 7 Gha. The defendants 1 to 5 did not file reply to the application. The defendant No. 6, however, submitted reply to the application by raising objection that the plaintiff was bound by his admission made in the plaint and if the amendment is allowed then it would prejudice the case of the defendant, as the original shape of the plaint shall be changed.
(3.) The learned trial Court dismissed the application vide the impugned order placing reliance on Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa, (1995) 2 Raj LW (SC) 118 : (AIR 1995 SC 1498). Learned counsel Shri K. N. Joshi, submitted that admissions can be explained and even inconsistent plea could be taken in the pleadings.;