An admission made in a written statement can only be explained and cannot be withdrawn.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - The present revision has been filed against the order dated 15.9.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sirsa, vide which the application moved by the petitioner to amend the written statement has been declined.

2. In the application for amendment, the petitioner was seeking to withdraw the categorical admission made by him in the written statement earlier filed. The learned Court relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in Heera Lal v. Kalyan Mal and others, AIR 1998 SC 618 as well as the judgment of this Court in Naresh Kumar Goel v. Rajinder Paul Sharma, 2002(2) RCJ 488 to reject the application for amendment on the ground that the petitioner could not be allowed to introduce such an amendment, the effect of which is withdrawal of the admission made earlier.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Heera Lals case (supra) and the judgment of this Court in Punna Ram v. Balkar Singh, 2002(4) RCR(Civil) 175 to contend that the petitioner could withdraw the admission made. However, neither of the two authorities supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that the admission made can only be explained and cannot be withdrawn. The view taken by the learned Court below is also on the same line. Therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.