The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is 1st defendant in O.S.45/2011 challenging the order dated 7.1.2015 passed on I.A.10, rejecting his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the Written Statement.

2. The 1st respondent who is the plaintiff filed O.S.No.45/2011 for declaration that defendants 3 and 4 are the owners of the suit schedule properties by virtue of being the heirs of the deceased Siddappa Ramappa Sataraddi and Smt.Sushilawwa W/o Siddappa Sataraddi, and for perpetual injunction to restrain defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties by plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4. It is contended that plaintiff is the brother of the 4th defendant and 3rd defendant is mother of the plaintiff and defendant4 and he has produced genealogy in para2 of the plaint, which reads as under:

Smt Sushilawwa @ Sushila (1st wife)(died on 27.11.2010)	Smt.Gangawwa (2nd wife) (Deft. No.3)
No Issues	Subhas (Plaintiff) Shridevi (Deft.4)

The present petitioner/defendant1 filed written statement on 22.8.2011, and admitted the genealogy stated in para2 of the plaint. Defendant No.2 also filed written statement and defendants 3 and 4 did not file any written statement. After completion of pleadings, the matter was posted for evidence and plaintiff filed affidavit evidence PW.1 on 22.05.2012 and the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW.1. At that stage, the 1st defendant filed application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, to amend the Written Statement by adding Para No.11(A) in between Para Nos.11 and 12, stating that Smt. Sushilawwa @ Sushila was only the legally wedded wife of Siddappa S/o Ramappa Sataraddi and there was no occasion to marry Siddappa Sataraddi with Gangawwa, etc. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff, by filing detailed objections to the amendment application.

After considering the entire material, the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 7.1.2015 rejecting I.A.10, holding that the amendment application is filed by defendant No.1 with an intention to withdraw the admission made by her and the same cannot be allowed.

3. As against the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

5. Sri.P.H.Godkhindi, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge is illegal and also stated that by way of amendment of written statement adding para11(A), Defendant No.1 want to state the clear facts of the case and the amendment will in no way prejudice the case of the plaintiff nor introduce the new case, and it will have correct facts of the case for crossexamination. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge.

6. Sri.N.L.Batakurki appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff sought to justify the impugned order.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

8. The only point for consideration is: “Whether the proposed amendment sought by the

1st defendant, introduces a new case or it is nothing but to withdraw the earlier admissions made in the written statement by defendant No.1?.

9. After considering the original plaint, the defence taken by defendant1 and the amendment sought, it clearly depicts that defendant1 by way of amendment, wants to withdraw certain admissions made in the original written statement including the relationship, and this is nothing but introducing an altogether a new case/defence by the defendant1. In the original written statement, the relationship between the deceased Siddappa Sataraddi and defen