Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Order dated 12.7.2013 (Annexure P-7) vide which application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement of the defendants, respondents herein, was allowed by the lower court, forms genesis of the present revision petition.

2. Respondent No.6 was proceeded against ex-parte on 10.11.2014 and on the date of hearing of arguments on 4.2.2015, neither respondents No.1 to 5 nor their counsel appeared despite several pass overs. They were thus also proceeded against ex-parte.

3. The plaintiffs, petitioners herein, are aggrieved of this order claiming that the amendment allowed in the written statement takes away the admission made by the defendants in their pleadings and thus, changes not only the contours of the litigation but even sum and substance thereof. Prayer for reversal of the impugned order and acceptance of the revision petition has been made.

4. Citing Vidyabai and others Versus Padmalatha and another [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 540] : 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 (SC), counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs has urged that the court has no jurisdiction to allow amendment of pleadings after commencement of the trial. It is claimed that when the plaintiffs started leading evidence, the trial is deemed to have started. This judgment was cited even before the trial court. Relying upon S. Malla Reddy Versus M/s Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society and others [2013(3) Law Herald (SC) 2297] : 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 957 (SC), it is further urged that the defendants cannot be allowed to withdraw the admission made by them in their written statement taking recourse to Order VIII Rule 9 or Order VI Rule 16 or Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. In the cited authority, unlike in the impugned order, the trial court discussing all the facts and circumstances of the case had not permitted the defendants to substitute the written statement wherein earlier, there was an admission of the claim of the plaintiff-society in the suit. Para 24 of this judgment being relevant for ready reference is reproduced as below:

“24. Although the defendant-appellants filed the petition for striking out their own pleading i.e. written statement, labelling the petition as under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, but in substance the application was dealt with as if under Order VI Rule 17 CPC inasmuch as the trial court discussed the facts of the case and did not permit the defendants to substitute the written statement whereunder there was an admission of the suit claim of the plaintiff-Society. The relevant portion of the order quoted hereinabove reveals that the trial court while rejecting the aforementioned petition held that the defendant-appellants cannot be allowed to substitute their earlier written statement filed in the suit whereunder there was an admission of the claim of the plaintiff-Society (respondent herein). Similarly in the revision filed by the defendants, the High Court considered all the decisions referred by the defendants on the issue as to whether the defendants can withdraw the admission made in the written statement and finally came to the conclusion that the defendant-appellants cannot be allowed to resile from the admission made in the written statement by taking recourse to Order VIII Rule 9 or Order VI Rule 16 CPC by seeking to file a fresh written statement. In the aforesaid premises, filing of a fresh petition by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after about 13 years when the hearing of the suit had already commenced and some of the witnesses were examined, is wholly misconceived. The High Court in the impugned order has rightly held that filing of subsequent application for the same relief is an abuse of the process of the court. As noticed above, the relief sought for by the defendants in a subsequent petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was elaborately dealt with on the two earlier petitions filed by the defendant-appellants under Order VI Rule 16 and Order