JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This defendant-applicants revision is directed against an order passed by the Court below rejecting an application filed by the defendant-applicant for amendment in his written statement. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit against the defendant-applicant for specific performance of an agreement for sale said to have been executed by the defendant-applicant in favour of the plaintiff opposite party. The defendant-applicant filed a written statement through a Counsel Sri Kripa Shankar, Advocate. In paragraph 3 of the written statement it was stated that the defendant-applicant admits only his signature on the agreement for sale set up by the plaintiff but denies to rest of the allegations made in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The said written statement was filed on 15-12-1978. After sometime the defendant-applicant filed an application before the Court below alleging that he had not engaged Sri Kripa Shankar, Advocate, and that the written statement purporting to have been tiled on his behalf was in truth not his written statement and it had been filed in collusion with the plaintiff. In the application it was prayed that the authority of Sri Kripa Shankar, Advocate, be cancelled and the applicant may be allowed to file a fresh written statement. It appears that the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on this controversy, namely whether Sri Kripa Shanker had been engaged by the defendant or the written statement had been filed collusively as alleged by the applicant. 3. By an order dated 17-3-1982 the Court below rejected the defendant-applicants aforesaid application. From a perusal of this order it is apparent that the Court below was not inclined to believe the defendant-applicants case that the written statement filed by Sri Kripa Shankar, Advocate, was not filed at his instance or that he had not engaged Sri Kripa Shankar, Advocate, as his counsel. In this order the court below also observed that it would be open to the defendant-applicant to make an application for amendments in his pleadings and the same shall be considered on merits. Thereafter, on 21-4-82 the defendant-applicant removed an amendment application, upon which the impugned order has been passed. In this order the court below also observed that it would be open to the defendant-applicant to make an application for amendments in his pleadings and the same shall be considered on merits. Thereafter, on 21-4-82 the defendant-applicant removed an amendment application, upon which the impugned order has been passed. The amendment sought by the defendant-applicant was to the effect that the averments made in paragraph 3 of the original written statement to the effect that on the agreement only the signature of the defendant was admitted be deleted. This amendment was opposed by the plaintiff, who has asserted that the defendant-applicant cannot be allowed to resile from the unequivocal admission made by him in the original written statement and that the impugned amendment completely changes the basic case pleaded by the defendant in the original written statement. 4. The court below has rejected the defendant-applicants application on the ground that the amendment sought by the defendant-applicant changes the very structure of the pleadings taken by the defendant-applicant in his original written statement. The Court below has accordingly disallowed the amendments sought by the defendant-applicant as mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application for amendments. The amendment sought through paragraph 1 was, however, allowed 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find myself in agreement with the court below. The Court below has in refusing the amendments sought by the defendant exercised its discretion legally and properly. In the original written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, categorical case pleaded by him was that the agreement set up by the defendant contained the signature of the defendant. The case now set up by the defendant-applicant is that the agreement was not signed by him. Undisputedly, it introduces completely new case which is inconsistent with the case originally set up by the defendant-applicant. Besides, it also enables the defendant to get over a very categorical admission made by him in his original written statement to the effect that he had signed the agreement. A vital part of the case set up by the plaintiff had stood admitted to the defendant-applicant which he is now trying to get over through the amendments sought by him. 6. A vital part of the case set up by the plaintiff had stood admitted to the defendant-applicant which he is now trying to get over through the amendments sought by him. 6. I am clearly of the opinion having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the present case that the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error of jurisdiction so as to justify interference by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. The revision is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. 8. The record of the case shall be sent down to the Court below forthwith.