IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 51 of 2011 Shiv Ratan Sharma and others - Revisionists Versus Smt. Uma Bhardwaj @ Uma Sharma and another - Respondents Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for revisionists. Mr. V.K. Kaparawan, Advocate for respondents. [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] This revision is directed against the order dated 21-07-2011, passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Rishikesh, District Dehradun in O.S. NO. 329 of 2009, Smt. Uma Bhardwaj Versus Smt. Rani Devi and others, whereby the amendment applications of the plaintiffs/petitioners were allowed. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 moved amendment applications 81-Ka and 96-Ga in Suit No. 329 of 2009. The defendants/petitioners filed objection wherein it was alleged that the plaintiff/respondent wanted to withdraw an admission made by her earlier. Learned counsel for revisionists drew attention of this Court towards the averments made in para Nos. 12, 13,19, 20 and schedule of the property given in the plaint as well as towards para No. 29 of amendment application paper No. 81/Ka, wherein it is stated that the defendant No.2 was never owner of the disputed property or the property mentioned in the sale deeds dated 16-5-2008 in favour of defendant No.3 and dated 9-4-2009 in favour of defendant No.4 and he had no right, title or interest in the disputed property. The defendant No.1 had no right to sale, transfer and alienate the disputed property to defendant Nos. 3 and 4. In another amendment application 96-Ga amendment was sought in para Nos. 13 and 19 to substitute the words ‘owned by the defendant No.2’ by words ‘under the occupation of the defendant No.2’ and in para 20 the words ‘their own property’ was sought to be substituted by the words ‘the property under the occupation of the defendant No.2’. 2 This fact is not disputed in the plaint that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has admitted that the defendant No.2 is owner of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. Learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that in the plaint the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has admitted this fact that the defendant No.2 is owner of east portion of disputed property and now by means of amendment she has denied the defendant No.2 to be owner of that property and pleaded that the property is in occupation of defendant No.2. It is further contended that the amendment sought is not in nature of explanation to the facts and the amendment sought is a withdrawal of the earlier admission and the learned trial court has committed a manifest error of law in allowing the amendment applications. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the judgment of Heera Lal Versus Kalyan Mal and others, reported in (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 278, wherein it has been held that while granting such amendments to written statement no inconsistent or alternative plea can be allowed which would displace the plaintiff’s case and cause him irretrievable prejudice. In the above cited case the three Judges Bench judgment rendered in M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another versus M/s. Ladha Ram & Co. reported in (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 320, has been followed. In reply to the contention of learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar & another, reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2544, in which the judgment of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava versus Km. Jyoti Sahay and another, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 462, has been followed. The ratio of Sushil Kumar Jain’s case (supra) was also considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Heera Lal Versus Kalyan Mal’s case (supra) cited on behalf of the revisionist and it was found that the amendment sought to delete the word ‘uterine’ was not displacing the earlier case of the plaintiff and there is an explanation of facts and is not withdrawal of admission. 3 In the case at hand by a perusal of amendment sought by the plaintiff it is obvious that the plaintiff wants to withdraw her admission to the fact that the defendant No.2 was the owner of eastern portion of the disputed property and now wants to amend the pleading by substituting that the defendant No.2 is in occupation of that property and if such an amendment is allowed that will cause irretrievable prejudice to the rights of the revisionists/defendants. The learned trial court only in a single line has observed that it is not withdrawal of admission of fact without discussing the case of parties. Therefore, the impugned order is perverse and against law and the amendment sought is a clear withdrawal of the earlier admission made by the plaintiff, and such type of amendment cannot be allowed. The revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The amendment applications are rejected. ISB (B.S. Verma, J. ) 12-10-2011