JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Issue notice, confined to respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on its behalf.

2. With the consent of the parties, the case is taken up for final hearing.

3. The defendant No.3-Guarantor is the petitioner, whose application (CMA No. 153/2018 in Civil Suit No. 7/12) under Order 8 Rule 9, Order 6 Rules 16 and 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 4.9.2018, constraining him to file the instant revision petition.

4. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against petitioner/defendant No.3 and proforma respondents No. 2 and 3/defendants No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter, the parties to be referred to as the “plaintiff” and “defendants”). Defendant No.1 is the principal borrower, whereas defendants No. 2 and 3 are guarantors. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement, wherein he denied all the averments contained in the plaint including availing of the loan or defendants No. 2 and 3 having stood guarantors qua the same. This written statement was initially adopted by defendant No.3.

5. During trial, defendants No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte, however later on, on an application moved by defendant No.2, ex-parte proceedings against him were set aside and he was permitted to file written statement. In the written statement so filed, defendant No.2 acknowledged the availing of loan amount by defendant No.1, i.e. principal borrower. It is thereafter that defendant No.3 filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the previous written statement adopted by him and further sought permission to adopt the written statement filed by defendant No.2. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide impugned order by according the following reasons:-

“Perusal of zimini order dated 10.10.2012 shows that the applicant/defendant No.3 had adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1, vide separate statement of his counsel on record and perusal of that written statement (filed by defendant No.1, which was along being adopted by applicant/defendant No.3) shows that the transaction of loan under reference has been denied vehemently, however, perusal of the proposed written statement (filed by the L.Rs. Of defendant No.2 on 22.2.2018), and intended to be adopted by the applicant/defendant No.3) shows that the transaction of loan has been admitted.

As a sequel to above, it is crystal clear that vide instant applicant applicant/defendant No.3 intends to plead new facts in his pleadings, which are mutually destructive to the facts pleaded by him in his earlier pleadings and hence, the instant application cannot be allowed, as the same would be against the statutory principle of estoppel, as the applicant/defendant No.3 cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold simultaneously. Moreover, it such applications are allowed, it would also be against the intent of legislature, as apparent from Order 6 Rule 15 (4) CPC. Reliance is also placed upon the dictum passed by Apex Court in M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills vs. M/s Lodha Ram & Co. AIR 1977 SC 680; Haji Mohadded Ishaq vs. Mohammed Iqbal AIR 1978 SC 798: B.K. Narayana Pulai vs. Parameshwaran Pulai (2000) 1 SCC 712; Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate 2001 (8) SCC 97, wherein it was held that an application for amendment to the written statement to withdraw the admission is not permissible. Hence, the applicant is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1000/- imposed upon the applicant/defendant No.3 to be paid to respondent/plaintiff.”

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

7. At the outset, it needs to be stated that the learned trial court has in fact not understood and appreciated the doctrine of estoppel, more particularly, the principle of “approbate and reprobate”, which is itself a species of estoppel and is intermediate