Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

1. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri Santosh Kumar Kesarwani, Advocate holding brief of Sri Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite parties.

2. Present revision has been filed seeking following relief:-

“It, is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of S.C.C. Case No. 34 of 2013 (Rama Raman vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh) pending before Additional District Judge, Court No. 14/Special Judge Gangster Act, Varanasi.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondents have filed S.C.C. Case No. 34 of 2013 in which revisionist has filed written statement on 05.02.2014 admitting the tenancy. After change of counsel, it was found that documents so annexed alongwith written statement is having a ‘license deed’, but due to typographical error, it is mentioned as ‘tenant’. He next submitted that after change of counsel, amendment application dated 23.03.2022 has been moved under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for substitution of word, ‘licensee’ in place of word, ‘tenant’ which was rejected on the ground that first of all any admission made in written statement cannot be withdrawn. Secondly; change of counsel cannot be a ground to allow amendment application at a very belated stage. Further, condition of due diligence has also not been satisfied. He firmly submitted that Apex Court has categorically held that a liberal view is required to be taken while deciding amendment application. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another; 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 864.

4. Sri Santosh Kumar Kesarwani, Advocate holding brief of Sri Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite parties has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for revisionist and submitted that law is very well settled on this point that once any admission is given in written statement, same cannot be withdrawn. The very similar issue was before Apex Court in the matter of Ram Niranjan Kajaria and others vs. Jugal Kishore Kajaria; (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 203 and others in which Apex Court had clearly held that categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of amendment application. He further submitted that even in case of typographical error in written statement, admission cannot be withdrawn. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Abdul Ahmad vs. Haq Nawaz Ahmad; 2016(8) ADJ 176. He also pointed out that so far as change of counsel is concerned, that can also not be a ground at a very belated stage. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Rama Nand and Ors. vs. Amrit Lal and Ors. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12067 of 2012).

5. I have considered rival submissions advanced by counsels for parties and perused the records as well as judgments cited above.

6. Facts of the case about the date of filing of suit, written statement and amendment application are not disputed.

7. Issue before the Court is as to whether admission made in written submissions may be withdrawn due to typographical error pointed by a new counsel i.e. due to change of counsel.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance basically upon paragraph nos. 25, 26 & 70 of judgment of Life Insurance Corporation (Supra), which is being quoted below:-

“25. The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defense which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment other side shoul