The High Court will not interfere with the trial court's order rejecting an amendment application in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless there has been an error in exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.

H. C. Mital, J.

1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 6-2-90 passed by Sri A. L. Verma, Additional District Judge, Roorkee, recjecting the applicant's application for amendment of the written statement in S.C.C. suit no. 54 of 1988 for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. Through the amendment application the defendant-applicant sought to take the plea that the. accommodation in question belonged to the father of the plaintiff and after his death it had devolved on his legal heirs and that the plaintiff alone was not landlord nor entitled to a decree for eviction against the defendant.

2. In the impugned order the learned court below has specifically stated that the suit was filed by the plaintiff as there has been default in payment of rent with specific allegation that the plaintiff was landlord and defendant was his tenant. In his written statement the defendant-applicant has admitted that grand-father of the plaintiff was the owner from whom he had taken it on rent and after his death the father of the plaintiff became the owner who continued to realise rent and he further specifically admitted that in the month of December, 1985 plaintiff's father told him that plaintiff was the owner and he further specifically admitted that be was always ready and willing to pay the rent to the plaintiff. Thus the defendant did not deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself. In that view of the specific admission in the written statement, the defendant through amendment application sought to resile from the earlier admission and deny the plaintiff's title as landlord and, therefore, he rejected the amendment application.

Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the revisionist has urged that a party can be permitted through an amendment application to withdraw its admission and reliance has been placed on an observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay, AIR 1983 SC 462. In that case the plaintiff had filed a title suit for declaration that he was entitled to withdraw a certain amount deposited by the second defendant in the court. The plaintiff had described himself as the son of 'uterine brother' of Rama Shanker Prasad. Subsequently the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint, inter alia, seeking deletion of the word 'Uterine' from the plaint. The trial court granted the application for amendment. The respondents preferred a Civil Revision in the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court allowed the revision observing as under :

"I, however, feel satisfied at least to this extent that in view of the legal position this word 'Uterine' has got a significance and may work in favour of either side to a very great extent. In this context therefore as it would amount to change the basis of the claim I am of the view that the amendment should not have been allowed."

3. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978) 2 SCR 614 : AIR 1978 SC 484, wherein after a review of number of the decisions Hon. Beg. C.J. observed that procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the Court of substantive justice. Their Lordships also rejected the contention of the counsel for the respondents that by the device of amendment a very important admission was being withdrawn. Thereupon their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed :-

"An admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away, therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. The learned trial Judge granting the application for amendment was satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, amendment of the pleading was necessary. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction for a reason which is untenable ou