CLR No. 48 of 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, Advocate for the respondent. The suit was decreed, against which, the defendant filed an appeal and, during its pendency, filed an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. The said application was rejected by the lower appellate court, against which, the present revision has been preferred u/S 115 C.P.C. The amendment sought in the written statement was to the effect that the land was no longer a revenue land. The lower appellate court has given a finding that there was an admission of the defendant and, based on that admission, a finding has been recorded by the trial court that the land is agricultural in nature. Consequently, by the impugned amendment, the defendant is trying to resile from the admission so made by him earlier which cannot be allowed and, accordingly, the lower appellate court rejected the amendment application. In my view, the order of the lower appellate court does not suffer from any error of law. Admission made by the defendant cannot be withdrawn on his ipse dixit. The writ petition consequently fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 11.11.2010 Shiv