Short Note : 1. The plaintiff non-applicant filed a suit for declaration, possession and mesne-profits in respect of land comprised in survey No. 32 in area of two bighas 18 biswas against the defendant non-applicant. It was alleged that the suit land was Government land. It was allotted by Tahsildar Sheopur Kalan to the plaintiff from Samvat 2030 to 2034. It was also alleged that the defendant bas trespassed on the land and he is denying title of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendant has sown crop of gram in December 1973. The defendant-applicant contended that the Tehsildar has illegally allotted the suit land to the plaintiffs and that the allotment order has not attained finality because the defendant has preferred an appeal against that order which is pending before the Court of S.D.O. The factum of encroachment was denied. It was asserted by the defendant that he is in possession of the suit land since the time of his ancestors. 2. After framing of issues, the plaintiff started evidence and closed the same on 10-9-1976. The case was fixed for defendant's evidence. 3. On 9-8-1977, the defendant-appellant moved an application for amendment of written statement whereby he wanted to withdraw his admission regarding factum of possession of the suit land and instead wanted to allege that the defendant was in possession only upto Samvat 2029 and had left possession over the suit land with effect from Sambat 2030. This amendment has been rejected by the impugned order Hence this revision. 4. Held: By application dated 9-8-1977, the defendant wanted to withdraw his admission on the point of possession. The lame excuse advanced as a ground for permission to withdraw the admission in question is illiteracy of the defendant. The case as set out by the defendant is that the land has been in his possession from the time of his ancestors, and the same is in his cultivating possession on the date of cause of action set out by the plaintiffs. There can not be any case of such an admission being made by mistake. Illiteracy can not be taken to be for such a stand to be taken. The stand taken by the defendant is of possession of his ancestors and thereafter his own possession of the suit land. There can not be any case of such an admission being made by mistake. Illiteracy can not be taken to be for such a stand to be taken. The stand taken by the defendant is of possession of his ancestors and thereafter his own possession of the suit land. It is on this ground that the legality of order of allotment in favour of the plaintiff-non-applicant has also been attacked, not only in the suit but also before the S.D.O. Thus are the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no reasonable explanation for treating the aforesaid admission to have been made by mistake. The ratio of the case reported in AIR 1954 Nagpur 200. 1962 JLJ Short Note 87 and 147, 1963 MPLJ Short Notes 34, 104 and 183, 1977 M. P. Weekly Notes V.I. Short Notes 40, 185 and 587 and 1977 Weekly Notes V.II S.N. 450 have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the evidence of the plaintiff-non-applicant has been closed. Withdrawal of the admission is being sought not at an early stage of the suit. The application for amendment is malafide. Revision dismissed.