S.N.Jha, J.

1. The defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision. He is aggrieved by an order by which his petition for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

2. The plaintiffs-opposite party filed Eviction -Suit No. 8 of 1988. In paragraphs 1 to 4 of the plaint in plaintiffs stated as to how the plaint in question belonged to one Mostt Jashoda Kuar as the absolute owner, which, was donated to the plaintiffs-deities by said Mostt. Jashoda Kuar under registered instrument dated 30.3.50, appointment of Ramji Prasad Singh and Lakshman Prasad Singh as mutwallis, as the said Ramji Prasad Singh is managing the property as mutwalli and collecting from defendant who has been, in occupation of the said premises described in Schedule II of the plaint, on payment of rent Rs. 50.00 per month. In paragraph 5 of the written statement, the defendant admitted the aforesaid statements made in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the plaint.

3. By the impugned amendment, however, he proposes to delete the said paragraph 5 of the written statement and, in its place, to substitute a new paragraph. In the proposed new paragraph he seeks to deny the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the plaint. He further seeks to state that Ramji Prasad Singh is not the Sebait of the deities. Rather, the property of the deities had been registered as public trust with the Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious "Trust on 2.9.88. The Board earlier on 12.7.88 removed Ramji Prasad Singh from the office of mutwalli and in his place appointed one Markandaya Upadhyaya. The Court below has rejected the prayer holding that the amendment if allowed would change the nature of the case. The Court observed that the defendant had admitted his tenancy and now he cannot resile from the admission.

4. Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below committed error of record in observing that by the proposed amendment the defendant seeks to cLalm ownership in the suit premises contrary to his stand in the original written statement that he is the tenant. He also submitted that by. the proposed amendment the petitioner merely seeks to add certain facts as to the nature of the trust and the sebaitship of the plaintiff-deities which would not change the nature of the suit. He contended that it is open to party to withdraw admission of a fact by amendment. In this regard he placed reliance on Panchdeo Narayan Shrivastava V/s. Kumari Jyoti Sahay.

5. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party submitted that the defendant-petitioner does not merely seek to add certain facts, he rather wants to resile from the admission made earlier in the written statement. He contended that while it is open to a party to expLaln the admission, it is not open to him to withdraw such admission which would cause prejudice to the other side. In this connection he drew my attention to the statements made in paragraphs-10 and 11 of the written statement to the effect that it is Ramji Prasad Singh who had inducted the defendant as a tenant in the suit premises in which he has been carrying on shop business for last 36 years and paying rent to him (Ramji Prasad Singh). Of late, the said Ramji Prasad Singh had developed intention and in order to get the defendant evicted from the premises refused to accept the rent whereafter defendant started tendering the rent by money order. Mr. Dwivedi contended that the statements made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the written statement are consistent with the statements made in paragraph 4 of the plaint which the defendant had admitted in paragraph-5. At this stage if he is allowed to plead a new case that in the year 1988 itself Ramji Prasad Singh was removed from the office of the sebait and in his place Markandaya Upadhyaya was appointed by the Board, it is bound to cause prejudice to the plaintiff. He placed reliance on Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. Ladha Raw and Co. -- .

6. I hav