The main prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows:

“Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P-5 and set aside the same by allowing the Exhibit P-3 amendment application bearing no. IA No. 3575/2017 in OSNo.152/2006 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad.”

2. Heard Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondents will stand dispensed with.

3. The order under challenge in this Original Petition is the one at Ext.P-5, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/1st defendant for amendment of the pleadings in the written statement has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/1st defendant cannot be permitted to withdraw an admission, which will cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. The impugned Ext.P-5 order reads as follows:

“ORDER

Petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.

2. Petition averments are as follows:-Petitioners are the defendants in the suit. Petitioners have sought to amend the written statement. The amendment sought is to delete the averment that the defendants have agreed to convey 9.60 links of property to the plaintiffs. This happened as a mistake. The said mistake is to be deleted from paragraphs 6, 8,9 & 11.

3 . Objection filed by the respondents stating as follows: This petition is not maintainable. As per the judgment in appeal the suit is remanded only to adduce evidence. This petition is barred by rule of estoppel. Hence respondents prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The amendment sought for is to delete an averment in the written statement. The averment to be deleted is “defendant has agreed to convey 9.60 links of the property to the plaintiffs”. The same alleged as a mistake is also sought to be deleted from paragraphs 6, 8, 9 and 11 in the written statement.

6. The counsel for the defendants submits that it is only a mistake which is sought to be amended.

7. The amendment sought for cannot be treated as an inadvertent mistake. The averment sought to be amended is reiterated in different paragraphs of the written statement. This is an admission in the written statement and withdrawal of an admission cannot be permitted.

Permitting withdrawal of an admission will cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. Hence petitioners are not entitled for an order to amend their written statement.

In the result, petition is dismissed.”

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the above said reasonings of the trial court rejecting the plea for amendment of the pleadings in the written statement are against the decision of the Apex Court in the judgment in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Jyothi Sahay & anr., reported in (1984) Supp. SCC 594 : AIR 1983 SC 462. The Apex Court in the judgment in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and ors., reported in (1998) I SCC 278, has dealt with the case where the defendants therein, in their joint written statement clearly admitted that 7 items of properties out of 10 items of properties concerned in the suit were joint family properties wherein the plaintiff had 1/3 share and the defendants had 2/3 undivided share and so it proceeded on the basis that there was no contest between the parties regarding 7 items of suit properties in the schedule thereof. The trial court then proceeded to frame the issues concerning only the remaining three items for which there was dispute between the parties. The defendants moved an application for amendment of their written objection for resiling from their above said admissions made in the written statement by contending that because of incomplete information supplied to him by his counsel in the written statement came to contain the so-called admissions regarding the schedule properties, etc. The trial court took the view that the application for amendment is not a bonafide one and it was moved only with the view