ORDER : The point involved in this revision petition is very short. The first respondent as plaintiff filed a suit T. S. No. 88 of 1962, claiming right of pre-emption, against the petitioner (first-defendant) and against the second respondent (second defendant). His case was that the second respondent sold the suit land to the petitioner in violation of the first respondents right of pre-emption. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, he had stated that though the consideration was shown in the document as Rs. 11,000/-, the real consideration was only Rs. 6,000/-. Further, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint, the first respondent had stated that on getting notice of the sale, he had asserted his right of pre-emption to the defendants on 9-2-1962, which they refused to comply with and that he made a second demand the very next day in the presence of witnesses, with which also, the defendants refused to comply. The petitioner in para 6 of his written statement had denied the allegations made in paragraph 5 of the plaint regarding the fictitious consideration and the real consideration. In para 7 of the written statement he stated that he denied all the allegations contained in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint and that he put the plaintiff to strict proof thereof. As however, the petitioner, felt subsequently that this denial may not amount to specific denial of the allegations in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint as required under Order 8 Rule 5 C.P.C., he filed an application for amendment of para 7 of the written statement making specific denial of the said allegations. The original written statement was filed on 3-12-1962, an I the amendment was applied for on 27-3-1963. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any serious delay in applying for the amendment. The first respondent opposed the amendment. The learned Subordinate Judge felt that when the petitioner did not specifically deny the allegations in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint, the Court is bound under Order 8 Rule 5, to take the allegations to be admitted and that if the proposed amendment is accepted, it will prejudice the plaintiff and hence he rejected the amendment. Against that order, the petitioner has come up in revision. 2. I find myself unable to accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge. Against that order, the petitioner has come up in revision. 2. I find myself unable to accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge. No doubt under Order 8 Rule 3, the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth. Order 8 Rule 4 states that the denial of an allegation must not be evasive, and must answer the point of substance. Order 8 Rule 5, provides that every allegation of fact, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. Thus, in this case, though in the original written statement, the petitioner had generally denied the allegations in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint, he did not specifically deny that the plaintiff had asserted, his right of pre-emption to both the defendants to purchase for the real consideration amount of Rs. 6,000/- in the presence of witnesses on 9-2-1962, that the defendants had refused to comply with the demand, that the plaintiff had again met them the next day and repeated the demand and that they had again refused to comply. The failure to make the specific denial may have the effect under Order 8 Rule 5 of the allegations being taken to be admitted. But in this case, the petitioner had already denied that the real consideration was only Rs. 6,000/- and not Rs. 11,000/- and so by necessary implication it will mean a denial of the demand of the plaintiff to grant pre-emption for Rs. 6,000/-. Thus, it cannot be treated that under Order 8 Rule 5, there has been an admission of the two demands made by the plaintiff on 9-2-1962 and 10-2-1962. But still the petitioner wanted to make detailed allegations denying the two demands by the amendment in order to obviate any inference which may be made by the Court under Order 8 Rule 5. 3. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been an admission by the petitioner within the meaning of Order 8 Rule 5. Further Order 6 Rule 17, provides that all amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties may be allowed by the Court. 3. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been an admission by the petitioner within the meaning of Order 8 Rule 5. Further Order 6 Rule 17, provides that all amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties may be allowed by the Court. One fails to see why the Subordinate Judge should have disallowed this amendment. It cannot be said that the amendment was inconsistent with the original plea of the petitioner or that he was setting up a new case. The fact that if the amendment is not applied for, the original plea would amount under Order 8 Rule 5 C.P.C. to an admission is, in fact, an additional reason why the Court should have allowed the amendment, instead of treating Order 8 Rule 5 as standing in the way of an amendment. After all, the amendment was not sought for after great delay. Under the circumstances, the order of the Subordinate Judge, refusing to allow the amendment is set aside. The revision petition is allowed and the Subordinate Judge is directed to accept the amendment. Parties will bear their own costs. Revision allowed.