Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 26-11-1986 passed by Sri N. N. Singh, Subordinate Judge, khagaria in Title Suit No.20 of 1975 whereby and whereander the said leamed Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint in terms of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure. 2. It is not necessary in this case to state the facts of the case in details. The plaintiff filed the aforenmentioned suit for partition. The admitted case of the parties is that both of them are purchasers from the original owners. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated as follows : "that the plaintiff is the purchaser of -/8/- annas interest of the properties detailed in Schedule No.2 of the plaint from the defendant nos.2 and 3 and the plaintiff has been in joint possession of the properties detailed in Schedule No.2 of the plaint along with defendant 2nd party who claim to be the purchaser of the interest of Mahabux Ram. It should be noted that there was defination of share between Mahabux Ram and the defendants nos.2 and 3 but there has been no partition by metes and bonds though parties have been in separate possession of the properties for convenience sake without measurement. " 3. However, he later oo filed an application for amendment by inserting various sub-paragraps in Paragraph 6 as has been quoted in extenso in paragraph 10 of the Civil revision application. In short by reason of the said application for amendment of plaint the plaintiff purported to have changed the nature of the suit from a suit for partition to a suit for declaration of title as also fur a further declaration that the deed of sale executed in favour of the defendant-opposite party is void and illegal. 4. By reason of the impugned order the learned court below rejected the aforementioned application for amendment of plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff had all along the knowledge of execution of the aforesaid registered deed of sale in favour of the defendant by his vendor, which fact he has accepted in Paragraph 6 of his plaint. 4. By reason of the impugned order the learned court below rejected the aforementioned application for amendment of plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff had all along the knowledge of execution of the aforesaid registered deed of sale in favour of the defendant by his vendor, which fact he has accepted in Paragraph 6 of his plaint. According to the learned court below, as the plaintiff in the original plaint accepted the deed of sale executed in favour of the defendant, he cannot be permitted to change his stand. The learned court below further took into consideration this fact that the suit was filed in the year 1975 but the application for amendment of plaint has been filed in the year 1982. 5. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that from a perusal or Paragrap 6 of the plaint as quoted hereinbefore, it would appear that no admission has been made by the plaintiff therein with regard to the validity or otherwise of the registered deed of sale executed in favour of the defendant-opposite party. 6. According to the learned counsel as the parties had been fighting the case not under the same title but under different titles, it it open to the plaintiff also to challenge the validity of the detd of sale executed in favour of the defendant. According to the learned counsel, in such a situation even expiry of period of limitation will not destroy a right of the plaintiff to file an application for amendment of the plaint, if it is otherwise permissible in the interest of justice. The learned counsel, in this connection, has placed reliance upon L. J. Leech and Co. Ltd. and another V/s. M/s Jordine Skinner and company, AIR 1937 SC 357, as well as Pirgonda Hongonda Patil V/s. Kalgonda Shidgonda patil and others, AIR 1975 SC 363 ). 7. Mr. N. K. Agrawal the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact that the plaintiff has made a clear and unambiguous admission with regard to the title of the defendant, which he acquired by reason of the aforementioned deed of sale, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to reside from the said statement. The learned counsel, in this connection, has placed strong reliance upon a Supreme Court decision in M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another V/s. M/s Lodha Ram and Company, AIR 1977 SC 680 . The learned counsel further submitted that the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff has rightly been dismissed by the learned court below on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff, inasmuch as whereas the suit was filed in the year 1975, the application for amendment of plaint was filed in the year 1982. 8. It is true that although there is no explicit admission on the part of the plaintiff that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant was valid, such an admission can be called out by interpreting the statements made in paragraph 6 of the plaint. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the parties, however, could not inform me as to whose deed of sale is earlier in point of time. 10. Be that as it may, the plaintiff as It appears from him application for amendment of the plaint that he stated therein the genealogy of the family of hij vendor for the purpose of contending that the defendants version with regard to his acquisition of title from his vendor is not correct as the vendor of the defendant had no title in relation to the land in question 11. Whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed in his plea or not is a different question. At this juncture, the only question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiffs application for amendment should be allowed. 12. It is true and has been held by the Supreme Court in M/s Modi spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd:s case (supra) that a party to a Us should not normally be permitted to resile from his admission. However, in a latter decision in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava V/s. Jyott Sahay and another, AIR, 1983 SC 462, it has been held by the Supreme court that a party may resile from his admission or may explain away the same. In the aforementioned case the Supreme Court was considering a case of amendment of plaint and in that case also an application for amendment of plaint was allowed. 13. In the aforementioned case the Supreme Court was considering a case of amendment of plaint and in that case also an application for amendment of plaint was allowed. 13. It is true that the plaintiff has filed an application for amendment at a belated stage i. e. at the stage when the evidences of the parties were being led before the trial court. 14. Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal V/s. National Building Material Supply, gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , the Supreme Court has laid down the law in the following terms :- "rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have bee a the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if u can be made without injustice to the other side". 15. Similar is the view taken in Suraj Prakash Bhaiin V/s. Smt. Raj rani Bhasin and others, AIR 1981 SC 485 ) wherein the Supreme Court held that an application, which is belated, should not be refused merely on the ground of delay and laches but for that the other side should be inflicted with costs. 16. In L. J. Leech and Co. Ltds case (supra) and Pirgonda Honganda patils case (supra) the Supreme Court allowed the application for amendment of plaint even after expiry of period of limitation. 17. In view of the fact that the plaintiff hai raised a serious contention with regard to the title of the defendant, in my opinion, it will not subserve the interest of justice if the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint is rejected and thereby he may loss his just and genuine claim on merits. 18. 17. In view of the fact that the plaintiff hai raised a serious contention with regard to the title of the defendant, in my opinion, it will not subserve the interest of justice if the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint is rejected and thereby he may loss his just and genuine claim on merits. 18. Thus taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, in my opinion, the application for amendment of plaint filed by the plaintiff should be allowed particularly in view of the fact that the case ot both the parties that thev are purchasers from the co-shares of the same family and thus, in my opinion the defendant shall not be prejudiced in any manner in fighiting out the case on merit as case of bota the parties are based upon their respective deeds of sale. 19. In the result, this application is allowed and the order dated 26-11-1986 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Khagaria, m Title Suit No.20 of 1975 is set aside subject to the payment of a bum of Rs. .1000/- by way of cost payable by the plaintiff petitioner to Sri Nawal Kishore Agrawal the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party within two months from today. A receipt showing payment of cost may be filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the court below. 20. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 1975, the learned trial court shall try to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within a period ot six months from the date of reueipt of a copy of this order. 21. In the facts asd circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Application allowed.