JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - This revision is directed against an order of the Trial Court rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant for ejectment. In the written statement, the defendant had admitted that the plaintiffs were the landlords. By amendment what was sought to be added in the written statement was that the building was purchased by the plaintiff's father Sri Ram Saran Das, who on his death was survived also by his daughters, for example, Smt. Rajoo, Smt. Maya and Smt. Vimla, who are alive and it was also said that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the daughters and consequently the suit was not legally maintainable and the plaintiffs alone were not entitled to sue. The effect of the amendment would be that the defendant would be allowed to resile from his admission that the plaintiffs were the sole owners. This cannot be permitted. Similar situation had arisen in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8803 of 1986, Daulat Ram v. IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and another, decided on 23-8-1986. The learned Single Judge has held that such an amendment cannot be permitted. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that a party can withdraw an admission and in this connection relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Panchdeo Narian Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 SC 462 . In an earlier larger bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co., AIR 1977 SC 680 , it was held that the :- "............Defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the case made in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case." It was further held : "It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings, but the effect of substitution of Paragraphs 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff it completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement.............." 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Tula Ram v. IVth Additional District Judge, Aligarh and another, 1985 (2) ARC 428, has while referring the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava (supra) relied upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills and Co. Ltd. and another (supra). This he has done in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1596 . In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the learned Judge was right in not permitting the applicant to withdraw from the admission that the plaintiffs were the sole owners and the landlords of the premises in suit. 5. In regard to the other amendment of the written statement, the position was that in the original written statement it was pleaded that notice from the plaintiffs was not received. By the amendment. What is sought to be added is that the notice did not relate to the premises in suit. What is now being sought to be added is not inconsistent with the original written statement and may be permitted. 6. In the result, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the revision is allowed in part. Only that much of the amendment will be permitted which enables the applicant to deny that the notice sent by the plaintiffs did not relate to the accommodation. 7. The suit be decided expeditiously. 8. A copy of this order may be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 48 hours.