HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.4699 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, dated 02.08.2011 dismissing I.A.No.1968 of 2005 in O.S.No.505 of 2002 filed by the plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner herein, under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.505 of 2002 against the respondents-defendants for grant of permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to remove the drainage pipe along with roof over the ABGF area of plaint plan. The respondents-defendants contested the said suit. In the said suit, evidence on both sides was closed and the matter is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the aforesaid I.A.No.1968 of 2005 seeking amendment of the plaint by removing the pleading mentioned at page No.2 i.e., “while selling the property the vendor of the plaintiff kept the terrace rights of plot ABGF and sold the ground area. The said fact is clearly mentioned in the deed”. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.1243 of 2006 and this Court, while setting aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration by examining Ex.A1-sale deed dated 06.06.1994 executed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. Subsequently, the trial Court, on re-consideration of the entire material available on record, dismissed the said application by order dated 02.08.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present revision. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., no doubt the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, the amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed, when it has the effect of withdrawing the earlier admission made by the party in favour of the opposite party. In the instant case, the admission made by the petitioner-plaintiff in her pleadings will not be withdrawn as Ex.A1 document is also not supporting the version of the petitioner-plaintiff that a promise was made by her vendors for removal of the terrace over ABGF area, as per plaint plan, at the time of execution of Ex.A1 sale deed in her favour. In page 6 of Ex.A1-sale deed, an undertaking by the petitioner-plaintiff and her vendors was mentioned and the same also did not disclose any rights to the petitioner-plaintiff over the terrace. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that the relief sought for by the petitioner- plaintiff for amending the plaint by removing her admission at this belated stage of proceedings, cannot be permitted. In the suit, evidence on both sides was closed and the matter is coming up for arguments. Under the above reasons, I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH 04.11.2011 Gsn.