Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Despite valid service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The instant Civil Miscellaneous application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned Sub- Judge 4, Gaya, in Title Suit No. 63 of 2015 by which amendment petition dated 17.05.2017 filed by the defendants/petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

4. The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiffs have instituted Title Suit No. 63 of 2015 for declaration that sale deed dated 18.04.2012 executed by plaintiff no. 1 in favour of defendants be declared as void and unenforceable in law as it is vitiated by fraud. The claim of the plaintiffs is that Dakhiya Devi (plaintiff no. 1) is an illiterate Pardanashin lady from whom signature on blank paper were taken and registered sale deed dated 18.04.2012 was executed by means of fraud and thus she challenged the legality of the said registered sale deed. Petitioners who are defendants in the suit appeared and filed their joint written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and prayed to dismiss the suit with cost. The defendants claimed that Dakhiya Devi executed the said sale deed in favour of defendants after receiving the entire consideration amount in which witness is her son namely Satendra Yadav. The defendants when came to know that inadvertently instead of step son with respect to Satendra Yadav son has been incorporated into their written statement which requires to be corrected, they filed amendment petition dated 17.05.2017 for amendment of their written statement in relevant paras against which the objection was filed by the plaintiffs.

5. The learned Trial Court rejected the amendment petition filed by the petitioners/defendants. Hence, this miscellaneous application has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Trial Court has without assigning any valid reason rejected the amendment petition of the petitioners. It is submitted that the objection of the plaintiffs was that there is no provision that the written statement should be allowed to be amended by making out a case of withdrawal of admission which is not true legal proposition. He has submitted that there is no question of any admission but it is necessary to bring on record the actual facts before the Court and further submitted that it is settled law that in written statement even the defendants can take inconsistent plea. Further it is also settled law that amendment of written statement are being considered liberal than that of the amendment in the plaint as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, he has submitted that the trial is still to commence and the proposed amendment which is formal in nature cannot be said to be withdrawal of admission. Further, it is submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit and also no prejudice would be cause to the plaintiff and rejection of amendment petition will cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the material available on record and the impugned order, it appears that the Trial Court rejected the amendment petition stating that the petition is not maintainable without assigning any reason whatsoever.

8. The objection of the respondents is that earlier in the written statement the defendants have stated that Satendra Yadav was the son of plaintiffs but now they are making out a case that she has a step son who is the son of second wife of Mundrika Yadav and thus the same cannot be allowed as the same is the withdrawal of admission in the written statement

9. On the other hand, the submission on behalf of petitioners is that allowing the necessary amendment could not amount to the withdrawal of admission contained