GOLLA THIRUPATHAIAH Vs. KARNAM RAMASUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This revision petition is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and order dated 29.1.1999 passed on I.A.No. 31/ 98 in O.S. No. 95/96 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. By the impugned order, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs in I.A.No. 31/98 was allowed.

(3.) the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that as per the plaint filed, the plaintiffs admitted that the first defendant is the owner of the land situated to the south of CICICI filed channel in which the first defendant has dug a field channel, but by the proposed -amendment the plaintiffs want to include the said field channel within the suit schedule property contending that the filed channel is also part and parcel of Survey No. 440. He contended that this amendment if allowed would chnge the nature of the suit and the plaintiffs have not pleaded any cause of action regarding the field channel. In fact, according to the plaint which was filed along with the suit plan, it is clearly admitted that the first defendant is the owner of the area where he has dug field channel to the South of field channel CICICI and by the proposed amendment such admission made by the plaintiffs would be taken away. Therefore, this amendment could not have been allowed by the court below. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal stating that an admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by an amendment. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order of the court below and also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Panchdeo Narain v. Jyoti contending that even if an admission is made in the plaint, the same can be withdrawn or deleted by seeking amendment 'and accordingly he submitted that the revision petition is liable to be rejected.