( 1 ) THIS Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Amreli rejecting the application Exh. 69 for amendment of the written statement in Special Civil Suit No. 97 of 1983

( 2 ) THE opponents in this Revision Application have filed Special Civil Suit No 97/1983 against the applicant for recovering certain amounts with interest On the basis of a writing executed by him as a result of agreement between the parties on 28 on which date the partnership between them came to be dissolved

( 3 ) THE applicant filed his written statement at Exh. 48 He did not admit the plaintiffs claim and contended that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action He contended that the plaintiffs had managed to place him in a financially embarrassing position compelling him to agree to pay the amount due to them by instalment Because of their non-cooperative and adverse attitude as alleged by the defendant he was unable to run the business profitably He averred that he is willing to pay the amount that may be found due to the plaintiffs but he should be granted monthly instalments of Rs. 1 0 in view of his financial position. This writing statement was filed on 28/03/1984

( 4 ) AFTER about 3 years thereafter the defendant submitted an application Exh. 69 allegedly for amending the written statement. He alleged that because of his bedridden condition as a result of a motor accident he had not staled all the relevant facts in his original written statement Exh. 48 and if he referred to the facts which he now wanted to bring on record in his statement at the time of leading evidence the plaintiffs would object to the same on the ground that such a case was not pleaded in the written statement. The defendant by this amendment wanted to pages and which refers to certain facts prior and subsequent to the execution of the document in question In substance however the defendent wanted to raise a convention that his signature was taken on the disputed document because of misrepresentation and false assurances given by the plaintiffs He contended that he was not liable as per the alleged agreement dated 28-2-1983.

( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that the defendant did not actually want to amend the written statement but in effect to file entirely a new written statement would prejudice the case of the plaintiffs. It is this order which is being challenged in this Revision Application

( 6 ) MR. S. M. Shah learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that by the proposed amendment the defendant did not withdraw any admission alleged to have been made by him but he was merely stating new facts in order to explain the execution of the document dated 28-2-1983 He also submitted that the defendant had not admitted written statement; he had merely expressed his willingness to pay the amount which may found due to the plaintiffs by instalments He further submitted that if he wants to bring on record certain facts which may throw light on the execution of the disputed agreement there is no reason why such an amendment should be refused when questions in controversy between the parties are required to be determined from all angles Mr. P. V. Hathi learned Advocate appearing for the opponents on the other hand claim in their original written statement and he cannot now be permitted to resile from the admissions made by him He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. and Another v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Company (AIR 1977 SC 680) In the case of M/s. Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. the defendants had applied for deletion of paragraphs 25 and 26 of the original written statements and by substitution of two new paragraphs. The Trial Court rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the defendants wanted to resile from the admissions made in