Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- In this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff Monika has assailed order dated 17.9.2011 (Annexure P/6) passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/4 moved by defendant/respondent Sandeep for amendment of his written statement Annexure P2/A.

2. Plaintiff-petitioner in the suit has inter alia challenged release deed dated 22.2.2002 allegedly executed by her in favour of defendant regarding 1/4th share in 193 kanals 8 marlas land on the ground of fraud etc.

3. The defendant in his written statement Annexure P2/A has repeatedly controverted the said claim of the plaintiff and defended the execution of the release deed in question as legal and valid.

4. In the amendment application Annexure P/4, the defendant alleged that in paragraph 2(vii) of the written statement, while denying the said paragraph of the plaint, it was inadvertently stated that the factum of execution of release deed was kept concealed from the plaintiff, whereas the said plea was to be denied. The word ‘stated’ is to be substituted by the word ‘denied’.

5. Plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P/5 opposed the amendment application.

6. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/6 has allowed the amendment application subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition challenging the said order.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

8. Counsel for the petitioner relying on judgments of this Court in Shanti Bhatia and others versus Miss Priyanka and others, 2012(5) RCR (Civil) 248 and Ajit Kumar versus Kiran Kumari and others, 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 1 contended that proposed amendment of written statement for withdrawing the admission made in the original written statement could not be allowed. It was also contended that amendment of written statement was sought at final stage of argument in the suit and therefore, the same could not be allowed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in Avtar Singh versus Tara Rani, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 52.

9. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that the written statement has to be read as a whole and it would depict that the defendant has repeatedly and strongly denied the averments of the plaintiff regarding challenge to the release deed and has defended the release deed to be legal and valid and there was only inadvertent typographical error in paragraph 2(vii) of the written statement which is sought to be corrected by amendment of written statement and the same has, therefore, been rightly allowed by the trial court.

10. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute with the proposition that admission made in the original written statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by amendment thereof. There is also no dispute with the proposition that ordinarily after commencement of trial, amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed. Aforesaid propositions of law laid down in the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner, however, do not help the petitioner in the instant case. Para no. 2(vii) of the plaint is reproduced hereinunder:-

“2(vii) That the aforesaid facts were kept concealed by the defendant and the plaintiff has now in the last week of December 2005 came to know about the aforesaid fraud played by defendant when the plaintiff came to know that the defendant under the garb of illegal document intends to further alienate the suit land.”

11. Corresponding para no. 2(vii) of the original written statement Annexure P2/A is also reproduced hereinunder:-

“2(vii) That para no. 2(vii) of the plaint is wrong hence denied. It is stated here that the fact of execution of the release deed was kept concealed from the plaintiff and the plaintiff came to know only in the last week of December, 2005 regarding the execution of the release deed. It is stated here th