( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code ) is directed against the order dated 6th August, 1984 dismissing the petitioner s application for leave to amend the written statement

( 2 ) BRIEFLY these are the facts. On 27th September, 1979 Delhi Wakf Board, Delhi, plaintiff filed a suit for possession of premises situated at Masjid Qazi Wali, Bazar Paharganj, New Delhi against the defendants petitioners paras 1 and 2 of the plaint are as under:

"1. That at Delhi the plaintiff is corporated body under Wakf Act (29 of 1954) and he is entitled to suit. 2. That Shri Mehmood Qamar is the Secretary of the plamtiff who is fully conversant with the Facts of the- case- and is the Principal Officer of the plaintiff. He is autborised to- file: suit and is compete to sign and varify plaint". In the written statement these two paragraphs were admitted by the defendants . On 16th April, 1984 the petitioners filed an application for leave to amend the written statement. It has been alleged that the Delhi Wakf Board is governed by the Wakf Act, 1954 as extended to Delhi and supplemented by the Rules and Regulations framed under the Act It is alleged that the Rule were framed under the Act on 23rd September 1963 and the Regulations were framed on 5th December 1963 but no copy either of Rules or Regulations is available in the market or the Pubicatio Dlvision of the Government of India.

( 3 ) THE petitioners submit that under Regulation No. 17 of Delhi Wakf Board Regulations, 1963 a Property Committee is to be appointed by the Board and under Regulation 35 the Property Committee only is authorised to take decision about the filing, of the suit relating, to the properties of the Wakf Board. The petitioners therefore sought leave to amend the written statement as follows :

"2. Para 2 of the plaint is not admitted. The suit of the plaintiff as framed is not maintainable. The only body or committee authorised to sanction the filing of a Court case was the property committee, as per regulation framed under the Delhi Wakf Act on 5th of December, 1963 published in the Delhi Gazette at No. 51 (Part iv) dated 19. 12. 1963. "

"moreso, as the person signing the plain as Principal Officer is no longer in the Board and the new Principal Officer, appointed in his place has not cared to be impleaded in his place. " the application was resisted. The trial court by the impugned order dismissed the application on the ground that the proposed amendment amounted to withdrawal of admission made by the defendants in the written statement.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submit that an admission, if any can be withdrawn or explained. He further submits that the admission in the written statement arisan admission on law which can be withdrawn. He further submits that paragraph 2 of the written statement does not infringe the right of the petitioner to place on record the fact that the Property Committee of the Delhi Wakf Board is the only proper authority to sanction the filing of the court case and if such a sanction is absent the suit would not be maintainable.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners refers to Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 S. C. 462 wherein it has been observed that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may beexplained away and therefore it cannot be said that by amend- ment an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. it is not disputed that under the Delhi Wakf Act, 1954, it Acts and Regulations suits are to be instituted by the Secretary. The question for decision however is whether the Property Committee which has been constituted under the Act by the Regulations over sanctioned the filing of the suit. Regulations 17 and 35 (A) (c) of Delhi Wakf Board Regulations, 1963 read as -under

"17. Appointment of Committees The Board shall appoint the following five permameat committees and as many other temporary committees as it de