IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 318 OF 2008 MR. FLORIANO D'COSTA AND 3 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. KRISHNA SHARASCHANDRA VERLEKAR AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. J. Godinho,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. Arun B. De sa, Advocate for the respondent No.2 Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 19th March, 2009 P.C. This writ petition has been filed by the original defendant No.1,2,4 and 7 against the order passed by the Civil Judge, whereby an amendment application moved by them, was rejected. 2. The petitioners had entered into a contract of development of their property with the respondent No.1/ plaintiff. After the said contract was entered into, some dispute arose between them, as a result of which, the respondent No.1/ plaintiff instituted a suit against the present petitioners and others for injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out construction over the suit property. It was also prayed that the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 be directed to execute necessary agreement to get the necessary concurrence of the defendant No.7. The defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 7 filed their written statement in the matter. Thereafter, some dispute arose between them and their Lawyer. As a result, they approached another Lawyer and there was a fresh agreement between the one of the relatives of the second Lawyer with regard to the development. That development agreement was between the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and defendant no.8. Since there was change in the Lawyer, the new Lawyer was appointed in place of old one and it seems that their new lawyer felt that the written statement should be amended. As a result, an application for amendment was moved for and on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 7. 3. By this amendment, the defendants wanted to add the figures in the written statement so as to make it a written statement for and on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. They also wanted to add paragraph No.27 by deleting the original para No.27. 4. The learned Judge of the Trial Court, rejected the application for amendment and being aggrieved by that, this writ petition has been preferred. 5. After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, it is apparent that the original written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 1,4 and 7 alone. Obviously, the said written statement was not filed by the defendant Nos. 2,3 and 5. In view of the fact that the original written statement was not signed by the defendant Nos. 2,3 and 5 and was not filed on their behalf, the learned Judge of the Trial Court, had rightly rejected the contention that the defendants should be allowed to substitute the figures showing the written statement for and on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. I need not therefore, to interfere with that part of the order at all. If at all the defendant Nos. 2,3 and 5 want that their written statement should be on record they are at liberty to apply to the Trial Court if they so choose to file a separate written statement. The Trial Court may consider that aspect whether their written statement should or should not be accepted on record, on merits. None of the observations of this Court, should come in the way of the Trial Court. 6. As far as the addition of para 27 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondents, submit that the defendants should not be allowed to delete original para 27 at all. He submits that there is no reason why that para should be allowed to be deleted. He submits that if at all the defendants want to explain anything, they are at liberty to explain it and there is no reason for deletion of paragraph and only intention that appears to be, is to withdraw certain admission that may have been given in the written statement. The law is well settled that the party is entitled to explain any kind of admission, but it cannot withdraw any admission that has already been given. In view of this, I find that the learned Judge of the Trial Court, was right in rejecting the application for deletion of para 27. However, I find that there could be no difficulty in allowing the amendment by adding another paragraphs in the written statement by way of para 27a to h. Every party has a right to make even inconsistent pleas if they are not mutually destructive. In view of this, the amendment application has to be allowed to the extent that the defendant Nos.1,4 and 7 are permitted to add para 27a to h. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. These paragraphs may be added as paragraph Nos.27a to h after original para No.27. No order as to costs. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA