Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 5-12-1996, passed by Sub-Judge, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, whereby his application under Order 6, Rule 17, C« P. C. for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from making any interference in his suit property, consisting of land measuring 8 biswas, comprised in Khasra No 613/489 situated in Mauza Rajgarh, Pargana Giripar, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur and the building constructed thereon by projecting the construction of the first and second floor of his building towards the suit property and also by causing any type of damage to the stairs thereon It was admitted in the plaint that the respondent-defendant is owner of the adjoining land comparised in Khasra No 611/ 489 and 612/489 over which he has raised construction by covering his entire land. But the precise allegations were that the respondent-defendant has no right to make any encroachment on the building of petitioner-plaintiff by way of projecting the construction of first and second floor of his building and to cause any type of damage to the stair case built by him on his land.

3 Now by way of amendment, the pensioner plaintiff intends to withdraw the admission that the respondent defendant is owner of the adjoining land comprised in Khasra No ell/489 and 612/489 and also that he has made construction over his entire land on the ground that he has come to know that the respondent-defendant by conniving with the revenue officials has got his name incorporated in the revenue record in respect of this land on the basis of some fictitious exchange, as such, he has no right, title or interest in the land over which he has made construction despite the stay order by encroaching 15 x 35 square feet out of the suit land which caused the blocking of light and air passing through the windows of the residential house of the plaintiff On these allegations the petitioner-plaintiff has claimed the easementary right of the light and air by way of prescription and has prayed for decree of mandatory injunction for demolishing the alleged construction in addition to decree of permanent prohibitory injunction initially prayed for.

4. The amendment was opposed on the ground that by the admissions made in the plaint valuable right has accrued to the respondent-defendant, the withdrawal of which will cause irreparable loss to him and also that the proposed amendments will change the nature of the suit as altogether different cause of action is being introduced These objections to the proposed amendment weighed with the Sub Judge, Rajgarh and he has dismissed the amendment application Hence, the present petition.

5. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff has vehemently urged that since the suit is at the initial stage and the respondent-defendant has not filed his written statement, the amendment of the plaint will not cause any loss and injury—-what to talk of irreparable loss and injury to him. According to him, there is no bar to withdraw the admissions if it is justified on the new facts coming to the knowledge of a party withdrawing the admission and it is necessary for adjudication of the dispute raised in the suit In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 SC 462 and A/Is. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent defendant has opposed the proposed amendment on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the withdrawal of the admissions would cause irreparable loss and injury to the respondent-defendant According to the learned Counsel, under the garb of the proposed amendment the petition