JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. One Shanti Sarup executed a Will. Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6 are his daughters. Respondent No.7 Ritu Sarup is the daughter of Respondent No.2. She had an accidental fall and became handicapped.

3. The Will was executed on or about 23.9.1999 bequeathing his properties in equal shares to the appellant and the said Ritu Sarup.

4. Appellant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, inter alia, for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for a decree of permanent injunction. Respondent No.6 Leela Jetlley, on being served with the summons appeared through one Shri M.P. Vasudeva, Advocate. She filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint.

5. A counter claim was filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 5. In their written statement, they did not deny or dispute execution of the Will by Shanti Sarup.

6. Respondent No.6, however, filed another written statement denying and disputing the claim of the appellants in toto. She also filed an application on 28.8.2000 for permission to take the first written statement off the records and to file another written statement on the premise that she had not engaged the said M.P. Vasudeva, nor had she filed any written statement through him. She denied and disputed her signatures appearing on the said written statement. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge.

7. A revision petition was filed by the appellant thereagainst. By a judgment and order dated 15.3.2002, the High Court, while setting aside the said order of the learned Trial Judge dated 12.9.2001 directed it to hold an enquiry at the first instance as to whether the respondent No.6 ever engaged Mr. Vasudeva, Advocate or ever signed the written statement which had been placed on record. It was directed that in the event the findings of the said enquiry go in her favour, it will be open to her to file the second written statement or the one which has been filed by her may be accepted. It was, however, observed : "Of course, I am not depriving Smt. Jetly to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in case the findings are given against Smt. Leela Jetly regarding filing of earlier statement."

8. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, an enquiry was held and it was opined that respondent No.6 had, in fact, appointed the said Shri Vasudeva as her lawyer and filed her written statement on 30.3.2000. A revision application was filed thereagainst by the respondent No.6 which by reason of an order dated 7.4.2004, was dismissed by the High Court.

9. An application for amendment was thereafter filed by her on 5.11.2004 which was allowed by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 23.2.2005. Appellant moved the High Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction and by reason of the impugned judgment the same was dismissed opining :

"Thus, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not prejudiced in any manner while allowing defendant No.6 to amend the written statement. The burden of proving the Will is to be discharged by the plaintiff in any case. Whether admissions contained in the written statement dated 30.3.2000 were relevant for proof of Will or such admissions were made erroneously or under mistaken belief or misrepresentation or such admissions are conclusive, are the questions which can be decided only after defendant No.6 is permitted to amend the written statement. It is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided at the stage of deciding the application for amendment of written statement whether admissions in the written statement dated 30.3.2000 are conclusive and binding on defendant No.6 and to what extent."

10. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit :

1. Respondent No.6, in view of admissions contained in her written statement filed on 30.3.2000 , could not have been permitted to resile therefrom.

2. She, having failed in her attempt to set up a plea that she h