An amendment of pleadings should not divest the opposite party of an advantage secured as a result of an admission, and withdrawal of admission causing prejudice should not be allowed.

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. These four revision petitions, the particulars whereof, have been detailed aforesaid, have been filed to challenge the orders dated 09.09.2017, passed respectively, in the separate suits filed by the respondents-plaintiffs.

2. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that respondents-plaintiffs have filed respective suits for issuance of permanent injunction, to restrain defendant-Municipal Council, Derabassi (present petitioner) from dispossessing them forcibly from the Bara, the detail whereof, has been given, in the respective plaints with the boundaries described and the same are situated in the abadi of Village Devi Nagar, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar.

3. Since, various suits filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, are of identical nature, for the purposes of revision petitions in hand, the facts as culled out from the paperbook of CR-8829-2017 are being noticed.

4. The copy of the plaint is Annexure P-2. It is evident from the same that Sukhvir Singh (plaintiff) had filed the suit for issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession or dispossessing him forcibly from the Bara, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint. In the same, it is asserted by the respondent-plaintiff that there is ancestral house and Bara in question, is in possession of the plaintiff. Now, they have threat, at the instance of defendant-Municipal Council, Derabassi, thereby, interfering into their possession or making an attempt to dispossess them from the suit property.

5. In pursuance of the notice issued, written statement was filed, thereby, taking preliminary objections, disputing the maintainability of the suit in the present form and also challenged the locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit and that the plaintiff is precluded from filing the present suit. On merits, it was asserted that plaintiff is in illegal possession of the suit property and that Municipal Council, Derabassi, is the owner of the suit property as municipal limits of Derabassi have been extended and village Devi Nagar falls in the municipal limits of Derabassi. As such, a prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

6. When the case was at the stage of recording of the defendant evidence, the petitioner, who was the sole defendant before learned Court below had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, thereby, seeking amendment of the written statement, whereby, proposed amendment was intended to be made, which has been reproduced in paragraph No.7 of the application. The gist of the same is to assert about the plaintiff to be not in possession of the suit property and to assert about the Municipal Council, Derabassi to have become owner in possession of the properties, owned and possessed by Gram Panchayat of village Devi Nagar and also intended to assert about the detail of the previous litigation regarding the suit property.

7. Also, the petitioner-defendant wanted to delete paragraph No.2 of their earlier written statement, in which, it was stated that plaintiff is in illegal possession over the suit land, which vests in Municipal Council, Derabassi.

8. However, in reply, the respondent-plaintiff resisted the claim of the petitioner-defendant. In fact, much emphasis, in the reply, was on the ground that in the previous written statement, the possession of the plaintiff has already been admitted.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide impugned orders dated 09.09.2017, the applications for amendment of the written statement were dismissed.

10. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders, Municipal Council, Derabassi filed the aforesaid revision petitions to challenge four different orders, passed in the respective suits of the respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

12. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has submitted that learned Court below has erroneously dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement. I