In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No.2225 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on 12.5.2010. Sharanjit Kaur --Petitioner vs. Jagmohan Singh and another -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Vikram Singh,Advocate,for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, Defendant No.1 has filed this revision against the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahr, dated 19.2.2010 by which her application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,CPC) for amendment of written statement has been dismissed. Earlier also, defendant No.1 had filed a similar application seeking amendment of written statement to allege fraud on the part of the plaintiff and the admissions already made were sought to be withdrawn. Learned trial Court, vide its order dated 18.7.2007, allowed defendant No.1. to elucidate allegation of fraud but did not allow her to withdraw the admissions made in the written statement. Defendant No.1. challenged the said order before this Court by way of Civil Revision which was withdrawn on 06.7.2009. Once again, by way of the present application, an attempt has been made to withdraw the admissions made in the written statement in the name of explaining the CRNo.2225 of 2010 (O&M) -2- averments already made. But a careful reading of amendment sought indicates that in the garb of explanation, another attempt is made to withdraw the admission which is not permissible in law. Moreover, the plaintiff has already examined seven witnesses, out of which three have already been cross examined and one has been partly cross examined. It appears that defendant No.1. knowing the case of the plaintiff is now trying to change the stand by withdrawing her earlier admissions. However, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that proposed amendment in the written statement is explanatory and not to withdraw specific admissions made in the initial written statement. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made because the amendment sought, which has been reproduced in detail by the learned Court below in the impugned order, clearly shows that defendant No.1. wanted to withdraw the specific admissions which is not permissible and as such, the present revision petition is only an abuse of process of the Court. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. 12.5.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge