HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA8H AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 4362 of2008 PETITIONER Plaintiff Nilanshu Vishwakamia, aged about 17 years, Through Guardian and father Shri Ramkripal Vishwakarma, R/'o Village Dagania, Post Khaira, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. Ramadhio @ Baiga Vishwakarma, aged about 66 yeai-s, S/o late Gajanand, by Caste Lohar, R/o Villge Daganiya, Post Khaira, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 2. The State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Distt. Bilaspur. 3. Santosh Singh S/o Ishru R'o village Peepra, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (VVRIT PETITION U1\T>ER AR.TICLE 227 OF THE CONSTlTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'bSe Mr. Satish K. Asnfliotri. J.) Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panei Lawv'er for the State. ORALORDER tih (Passed on 10"' day ofDeceiaber, 2008) Wifh ftie consent ofthe parties, fhe mattei- is taken up for heai-ing finally. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 09.04.08 (Annexure P/3) whereby fhe application of the detendant/respondent for amendment was allowed. Leamed counsel appearmg for fhe petitioner submits that if the ainendment is ailovved, fhis would change nature ofthecase. 2. On pemsal of fhe papers, the contention of the petitioner is not found sustainable. It is well settled principle that a cateaorical adimssion cannot be resiled from but, m a given case, it may be explaiiied orclarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining avvay the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character .tliereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take aii altemative plea. Such altemative pleas, however, cannot be mutiially desti'uctive ofeach other {See GautamSarup Vs. Leela Jetly (2008 (7) SCC 85}. 3%%;. s BS,,^1' 3. Havmg regard to facts situation ofthe case, vr'here the petitioner/defendaiit has soueht explanation iu the written statement by way of aniendment and the same is not destmctive ofthe avennents made therein. 4. This Court, in exereise ofits supervisory jurisdiction under Ai-ticle 227 oftlie Constitution of ludia, should refrain itself fi-om interfering wifh the order passed by fhe Court below, except in such cases whert perversity, illegality, irregularity orjurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. 5. Tlie order dated 09.04.08 (Amexure P/3) passed by tfae Ifiid Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, is just and proper, warranting no mterference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summarily. Sahn Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri • Judge