The Civil Revision Petition was admitted on 19-4-2008 and in C.R.P.M.P.No.2166/2008 interim stay had been granted.

2. The unsuccessful petitioner-defendant in I.A.No.1163/2007 in O.S.No.2050/2006 aggrieved by the order made by the II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dt.13-3-2008, dismissing the application filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience), had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Sri Murlinarayan Bung, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner would maintain that the view expressed by the learned II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, that the effect of allowing the proposed amendment would amount to withdrawal of the admissions cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the written statement always alternative pleas and even inconsistent pleas can be taken, when that being so, on the ground that allowing amendment of written statement would have the effect of the withdrawal of the admissions cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, there is no withdrawal of admissions as such and in fact, clarificatory stand had been further explained by virtue of the proposed paras which were sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the written statement. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the order impugned in the C.R.P. and further placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

4. On the contrary, Smt. Mammu Vani, the learned Counsel representing Sri S. Malla Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondent would maintain that as can be seen from the paras which are sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the written statement, the two important admissions are being withdrawn and the learned Counsel pointed out the specific pleas taken in the original written statement and also the relevant portions of the paras sought to be introduced by way of amendment. While further elaborating her submissions, the learned Counsel also pointed out that it is not as though this amendment of written statement had been thought of at the earliest point of time, at any rate, before the commencement of trial and when an application of this nature had been moved, after the commencement of trial, unless the conditions specified in the proviso are satisfied, such application cannot be allowed. The Counsel also would maintain that convincing reasons had been recorded by the learned II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, while dismissing the application and at any rate, if the proposed pleas sought to be raised by way of amendment to be allowed, it will have the effect of certain complications, like even the question of non-impleading of some parties. Hence, in this view of the matter, if amendment to be allowed not only it will amount to withdrawal of the admissions already made it would further create further complications and also would cause serious prejudice to the respondent. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions.

5. Heard the Counsel.

6. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner- defendant in I.A.No.1163/2007 in O.S.No.2050/2006 on the file of II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code wherein the petitioner-defendant prayed for amendment of written statement to permit the petitioner to carry out the amendment to add para 5(a) after para No.5 and para 6(a) after para No.6 in the written statement. The said paras sought to be introduced by way of amendment of the written statement are as hereunder:-

"5(a). It is submitted that the allegation that there was a leave or license is not correct, but in fact it was obtained on long lease. It is submitte