IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1810 of 2008 RAJIV PRASAD RAI & ORS Versus MOST. RAM SOMARI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 10/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the opposite parties. In the opinion of this Court when a specific admission was made in paragraph 5 of the plaint as with regard to an agreement for sale, an amendment to the effect seeking withdrawal of such admission was simply not permissible in terms of the provisions of Order-IV Rule 17 CPC. That being so, the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in refusing such amendment. However, counsel for the petitioner would point out that even if that amendment is not allowed he has definitely right to seek relief by way of an alternative claim, in as much as, opposite party, the executant of the agreement for sale has herself not only admitted the contents of the agreement for sale but has shown her willingness to execute the deed if the petitioner complies the terms and conditions. This Court in absence of 2 subsequent purchaser would not like to make any observation in this regard but then any subsequent event can definitely be made subject matter of the suit either at the instance of the plaintiff or even at the instance of the defendant-opposite party. With the aforementioned observation this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar