JUDGMENT :

Gurbir Singh, J.

Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 10.02.2020 (Annexure P7), passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as - the Trial Court), whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, moved by the plaintiff-respondent, for amendment of replication, has been allowed.

2. Petitioners are the defendants before the Trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,17,000/- (Rs.9,00,000/- being the principal amount and Rs.3,17,000/- being interest amount @ 12% per annum from the date of advancement of loan till the date of filing of suit).

4. The petitioners, being defendants, contested the suit by filing written statement and denied the advancement of loan. It was further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent had relied on a receipt dated 10.04.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- and another receipt dated 12.05.2015 for Rs.4,00,000/-, wherein there were recitals that interest for three months in advance had already been received by the plaintiff-respondent. In other words, Rs.18,000/- from the alleged payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.13,800/- from the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- had already been deducted. However, this fact was concealed by the plaintiff-respondent from the learned Court.

5. The plaintiff-respondent filed replication whereby it was denied that there was recital in the alleged writings that interest for three months had been received in advance.

6. Later, plaintiff-respondent filed application for amendment of replication to replace the words "The interest amount had been paid in cash" with the words "No interest amount had been paid at that time".

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the one hand, plaintiff-respondent is relying on receipts but want to deny recitals in the said receipts about interest for three months paid in advance. It has further been submitted that no new plea can be raised in the replication and the plaintiff-respondent can only rebut the new pleas taken in the written statement. A party cannot be allowed to withdraw the earlier admission or to introduce a new fact. He has relied upon four judgments passed by this Court in Chander Shekhar vs. State of Punjab reported as 1995(2) CLJ (Service) 566, Swaran Kaur vs. Harjit Singh reported as 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 466, Jaswinder Singh vs. Bakshish Singh and another reported as 2017(2) RCR(Rent) 571 and Gurjot Singh Gill vs. Vikramjit Singh reported as 2018(1) RCR(Rent) 678.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the case of respondent, set up in the plaint, is that the loan was advanced to the defendants-petitioners. The receipts dated 10.04.2015 and 12.05.2015 were executed by defendants-petitioners but they did not pay any amount to the plaintiff-respondent, neither out of principal amount nor out of interest. Inadvertently, in the replication, it was written that the amount of interest for three months was paid in cash, whereas nothing was paid to the plaintiff-respondent. It is further submitted that the defendants-petitioners have not admitted the receipts. Even if there is recital in the receipts that amount of interest for three months was paid in cash, it would be decided only during trial but the respondent-plaintiff cannot be denied to amend the replication. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another - Law Finder Doc Id 2029338 and prayer has been made that since trial of the case has not yet started, no