IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1658 of 2006 1. DOMAN DHOBI son of Sheo Bachan Baitha, resident of Village Titara, Police Station Mairwa, District- Siwan. 2. Kamlesh Dhobi @ Kamlesh Baitha son of Late Sukhlal Baitha, resident of Village Titra, P.O. Titra, Police Station Mairwa, District Siwan. . . . . . . Defendant. . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. SALHANT DHOBI son of Firangi Dhobi, resident of Village Machhagar, P.O. Machhagar, Police Station Hathua, District Gopalganj. . . . . . . Plaintiff. . . . . . Opposite Party 1st Set. 2. Bechu Dhobi 3. (i) Kallu Baitha son of Bimesh Dhobi resident of Village Titar, Police Station Bhairwa, District- Siwan. 4. Most. Marachhiya Devi W/o Khublal Dhobi --- Expunged. 5. Bhrigurajan Dhobi son of Rajbali Dhobi. 6. (a) Bishun Baitha, son of Sudama Dhobi, (b) Surendra Baitha son of Sudama Dhobi, © Mukesh Baitha son of Sudama Dhobi, 7. Babu Nand Dhobi sn of Late Doman Dhobi 8. Suman Dhobi son of late Doman Dhobi. All resident of Village Titar, Police Station Bhairwa, District- Siwan. . . . . Defendants/Opp. Second Set----- Opposite Parties. For the Petitioners : M/s V. Nath, Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocates, For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, ----------- 7/ 30.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1. Other opposite parties have not appeared despite notices. The defendant no. 8 and 9 – petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2006 whereby their prayer for amendment in written statement has been refused by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that amendments are fit to be allowed as the defendants have a right to make necessary amendment in their written statement. Even inconsistent pleas, as has been held by the Apex Court in Baldeo Singh & Ors Vs. Manohar Singh & Ors reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498, are to be allowed to be introduced in the pleading by amending the same. Learned counsel for - 2 - the petitioners also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ANDHRA BANK Vs. ABN AMRO BANK N.V. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2007 2511. According to him paragraph 5 and 6 of the aforesaid decision, supports his case as it has been held therein that additional ground of defence can be taken by making amendment in written statement. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submitted that by way of proposed amendment, the defendants-petitioners wanted to take away the advantage gained by the plaintiffs. In the written statement there had been admission by them that the plaintiff is son of Sheoratiya and Firangi Dhobi whereas by the proposed amendment they wanted to introduce that Sheoratiya and Firangi Dhobi died in the year 1950 itself and from thereafter the son of Sheoratiya and Firangi Dhobi also died. Thus, the plaintiff, actually, is not the son of Sheoratiya and Firangi Dhobi. It had been submitted on behalf of defendants-petitioners that they were not the original defendants, however, later on, they intervened into the matter and they were impleaded as defendants and thereafter they filed written statement. Subsequently, they came in possession of the certain documents which revealed that the plaintiff is not the son of Sheoratiya and Firangi Dhobi. On considering of rival submissions, as apparent from the impugned order, the court below had held that by the proposed amendment the defendants concerned wanted to take away the advantage gained by the plaintiff from the admissions made in the - 3 - written statement. Plaintiff’s evidence had already been closed and even the defendants including the defendant no.9 (the petitioner no.2 herein) had also been examined. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the court below had refused the prayer of amendment of the written statement on the ground that the same would not be proper for the ends of justice. I find force in the submissions made on behalf of opposite party no.1. Admittedly the defendants-petitioners in their pleading have admitted that the plaintiff is the son of Sheoratiya and Firangi Dhobi and thereafter the plaintiff”s witnesses as well as witnesses on behalf of original defendants have been examined and even petitioner no.2 (the defendant no.9) has also deposed. Now at this juncture allowing the prayer of amendment would definitely displace the plaintiffs from the advantage gained by admission on behalf of the defendants. In Baldeo Singh (supra), of course the Supreme Court has held that even inconsistent amendment in written statement has to be allowed liberally by way of amendment, however, in that case it was found by the Apex Court that no admission in the written statement stood withdrawn by the proposed amendment. That apart, it was also held therein that in that case the trial even had not commenced as the parties were yet to file their documents. However, in the present case it is admitted that evidence has been closed on behalf of the plaintiff and on behalf of the original defendants. Not only that, one of the petitioners had also been examined. Thus, the aforesaid decision will be of no help to the petitioner. In Andhra Bank (supra) the Apex Court - 4 - has held that it is permissible in law to allow amendment in the written statement of defendant by which additional ground has been taken. This decision also does not help the petitioners as in the present case any additional ground is not being taken rather earlier admission is being tried to be done away by making certain amendments in the written statement. In Ramayan Mahto & Anr. Vs. Mahanth Bhagwan Das reported in 2007(4) PLJR, this court has held that prayer for amendment cannot be allowed if it seeks to displace the plaintiff from the admission made in the written statement. In my considered opinion, in this case also, the defendants want to displace the plaintiff from the advantage gained due to the admission in the written statement as aforesaid. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 02.08.2006. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. Uday/ ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )