In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5318 of 2008 Date of decision: September 04, 2009 M/s Suchi Ram Satish Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Banta Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Johny Vij, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J This petition is directed against the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Moonak, dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint. Initially, the plaintiff had taken the plea that on 29.6.2001, the plaintiff had taken Rs.50,000/- and thumb marked the said entry, but he states that he had pleaded this fact due to inadvertence but actually the said entry was not thumb marked by the defendant. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that it will certainly change the nature of the suit. As a matter of fact, the court appears to have misunderstood the intent and spirit of the proposed amendment so also the meaning of the words “change the nature of the suit”. The amendment is merely either withdrawal of admission or rectification of mistake committed by the person who drafted the plaint, but the amendment does not in any way change the nature of the suit. The law is very much clear that the wrong or inadvertent admissions could be withdrawn or explained away. Reference, if any, could be made to the judgment delivered in case Sagar Singh Slathia vs. Surinder Pal Singh 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 37 wherein it was observed as under :- “8. To my mind, the conspectus of decisions bring out following propositions :- (i) Amendment of pleadings could be introduced under the circumstances which showed that there had been an accidental mistake or error that required to be rectified Civil Revision No. 5318 of 2008 -2- *** by appropriate altered pleadings or to bring to fore the changed circumstances or position of law. (ii) The attempt of the Court shall always be to secure the truth and to advance the cause of justice. If any mistake had arisen in the pleadings, parties should be allowed to amend the pleadings. (iii) Admissions are the best form of evidence which a party can rely against the other, but such admissions could always be explained whether the admission was made under the circumstances that either vitiated the admission or explained the admission. (iv) The amendment of pleadings are brought out only to eliminate surprise at the trial for allowing the parties to make the correct statements of facts, so that no fact which it inconsistent with pleading is ever brought before the Court through documents or evidence. (v) The pleadings from the bedrock of the legal edifice brought to Court for adjudication and if there has been any inadvertent error, it shall be not allowed to come in way to fetter the rights of parties interminably.” The trial court has taken a wrong view of the matter while declining the application for amendment which has resulted into miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this court. Consequently, this petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the plaintiff is allowed to make necessary amendment in the plaint. September 04, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge