STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ISHWAR DASS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed under Sec. 115 Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 19.2.94 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road in Original Civil Suit No.251 of 1993 and Civil Misc. Petition No.32 of 1993 Ishwar Dass etc. Vs. Bhikh Singh etc. rejecting an application moved on behalf of the revisionist under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC.

(2.) Aggrieved against the order dated 19.2.94 refusing an amendment application moved by the defendant-revisionist under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, the revisionist has come in revision before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Prakash Tatia appearing on behalf of the defendant-revisionist urged before me that an admission made by a party in its written statement can be withdrawn or may be explained away. Thus, according to him the learned Trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in refusing the amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. According to Mr. Tatia, it cannot be said that by amendment, an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. In support of this aforesaid contention, learned Counsel Mr. Tatia placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in a case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another AIR 1983 Supreme Court 462.