This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.11.87 passed by Munsiff No. 2, Gauhati in Title Suit No. 99 of 1S84 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement. The facts of the case can be briefly stated thus : The opposite parties 1 and 2, as plaintiffs, filed a suit against 16 persons including the present petitioners, who were defendants 6 and 7. The case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiff No. 2, Abdul Hai, purchased the land described in the schedule to the plaint in the name of his wife Tarikan Begum, plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 2, OOO/- from defendant Nos. 8 and 1 on 1.2.78 by registered sale deed and obtained possession thereof. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 6 and 7, the present petitioners, illegally erected boundary fencing on the suit land. It was also the case of th3 plaintiffs that the defendants in collusion with {he Mandal obtained a written Khatian wherein the names of the other defendants were also included. Accordingly, the suit was filed for cancellation of the Khatian as well as for ejectment of the defendants 6 and 7, (the present petitioners) from the suit land and for delivery of khas possession of the land to the plaintiffs. The suit proceeded ex-parte against all the defendants, except defendants 6 and 7, who contested the suit. The stand taken by defendants 6 and 7 in the written statement as well as in evidence was that they were not in possession of the suit land, that is, the land covered by Dag No. 1045, Patta No. 17 inasmuch as they were in occupation of land covered by Dag Nos. 1048 and 1049 which they had purchassd by registered sale deeds. As such, in view of the aforesaid stand there remained no dispute in regard to the possession over the land covered by Dag No. 1045, Patta No. 17 and the claim of the plaintiffs to that extent went uncontested. The suit however was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it was hit by section 66 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, for short "the Act". The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said order before the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati. The suit however was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it was hit by section 66 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, for short "the Act". The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said order before the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati. The Assistant District Judge held that section % of the Act had no application to the facts of the present case and as such, decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiffs. The appellate Court, however, examined the findings in regard to issue No. 2 as to whether the defendants were in possession of the land covered by Dag No. 1045, Patta No. 17. Ft was observed that there was a dispute between the parties in regard to the possession of a plot of land. Both the parties claimed possession over the same plot of land. However, according to the parties the description of land was different. According to the plaintiffs, it was a plot covered by Dag No. 1045, Patta No. 17 whereas according to the defendants 6 and 7 it was covered by Dag Nos. 1048 and 1049. The appellate Court felt that in that view of the matter, the trial Court was not justified in deciding the issue, the way it did. According to the appellate Court, the trial Court should have appointed an Amin Commission to survey the land to find out in which Dag Nos. the disputed land was situated, as that was very essential for deciding the real dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the appellate Court reman­ded the case to the trial Court with a direction to appoint a Survey Commi­ssion and to find out which of Lie parties were actually possessing which of the Dags, for proper determination of the suit, ft was also observed that in view of the rectification deed-; correcting the Dag Nos. in the sale deeds, which were Annexures A and B, the parties should be given chance to adduce further evidence. With the aforesaid direction the case was remanded to the trial Court, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. In terms of the direction of the appellate Court, the trial Court appointed Amin Commission. With the aforesaid direction the case was remanded to the trial Court, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. In terms of the direction of the appellate Court, the trial Court appointed Amin Commission. The Amin Commission after making due survey arrived at a finding that the plot of land in occupation of the defendants 6 and 7, the present petitioners, was Dig No. 1045, Patta No. 17 and not Dag Nos. 1048 and 1049, as earlier understood by the said defendants. In view of the aforesaid finding of the Amin Commission the defendants 6 and 7 filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of their written statement by substituting Dag No. 1045, Patta No. 17 in place of Dag No. 1048. The said petition was resisted by the plaintiffs on the ground that allowing of the said petition will amount to permitting the defendants to introduce a new case which is not permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. The learned trial Court by its order dated 2. 11. 87 rejected the said petition on the ground that as during trial of the suit in their evidence the defendants 6 and 7 had reiterated the statement made by them in the written statement regarding Dag No. and Patta No. they could not be allowed to retract from that position. Heard Mr. N. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. A.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Mr. Chakravarty submits that the learned trial Court acted erroneously in rejecting the prayer on extraneous consideration ignoring the relevant provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code which empowers the Court at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend its proceedings in such manner as it may find just and proper with a view to determining the real questions in contro­versy between the parties. Rule 17 of Order 6 of the CPC is quoted below : "17. Rule 17 of Order 6 of the CPC is quoted below : "17. Amendment of pleadings.-The Court may at any state of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as maybe necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties." Basing his arguments on the aforesaid provision Mr.Cnakravarty submits that no new case has been introduced but a mistake has been rectified, which was bonafide. According to him, the petitioners bonafide believed althrough-out that the plot of land in their occupation was covered by Dag No. 1048 and not by Dag No. 1045 and that was because of the description of the said land given in the sale deed on the strength of which they made an honest statement before the Court that they had nothing to do with the plot of land covered by Dag No. 1045, Patta No. 17 which was the suit land. Later, when it came to their notice that the plaintiffs were disputing over the same plot of land possessed by the defendants, the appellate Court also felt it proper to get matter investigated as to what was the correct Dag No. or Patta No. of the plot of land occupied by the petitioners. Accordingly, while remanding the suit, the trial Court was directed to appoint an Amin Commission to find out the correct Dag No. of the plot of land in occupation of the petitioners. That was done and it was found that the plot of land in dispute was the plot of land in occupation of the petitioners and its Dag No. was 1045, Patta No. 17. In the meantime the sale deeds were also rectified by the vendor and the correct Dag Nos. were put therein. The petitioner accordingly wanted the written statement to be modified. The trial Court rejected the prayer. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. It is difficult to understand as to how in the instant case, the plaintiffs will be adversely affected by the amendment of the written statement. In fact, the amendment of the written statement in the instant case is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Mr. It is difficult to understand as to how in the instant case, the plaintiffs will be adversely affected by the amendment of the written statement. In fact, the amendment of the written statement in the instant case is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that by the proposed amendment an entirely different case is sought to be made by the defendants which is not permissible. In support of his contention he has relied on M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Ladha Ram & Co., AIR 1977 SC 680 . He also refers to AIR 1969 SC 1267 , Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, in support of his cotcntion if the petition for amendment is malafide, it should not be allowed. There cannot be any controversy about any of the aforesaid legal propositions. The real controversy arises regarding application of the same to the facts of a particular case. The present case is not a case of tiic nature where the aforesaid decision will apply. It is well established principle of law that the object of Courts is to decide the right of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases. The Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy. As soon as the Court is of the opinion that the pleadings will not help the Court in deciding the matter in controversy it should allow rectification or modification of the pleadings. The pleadings are to help the Court in deciding cases and not to obstruct it in delivering justice. They should be given only the weight they deserve, no more no less. As held by the Supreme Court in a series of cases the rules of procedure are intended to do justice and not to obstruct it. Whenever an admission is made by a party to the proceedings erroneously, the party has to be allowed to withdraw the admission and correct the mistake unless the Court comes to a finding that there was malafide on the part of the person making the admission. The admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. Whenever an admission is made by a party to the proceedings erroneously, the party has to be allowed to withdraw the admission and correct the mistake unless the Court comes to a finding that there was malafide on the part of the person making the admission. The admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. It cannot be said that by amendment an admission ' of fact cannot be withdrawn. An amendment should invariably be allowed where an admission appears to have been made by inadvertance or erroneou­sly in ignorance of the true legal position. However, each case will depend on the facts of its own and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard.(See Panchdeo Narain Srivastava vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay. AIR 1983 SC 462 ). In the instant case it is clear from the admitted facts that there was some controversy regarding the description of the land in occupation of the petiti­oners, who were defendants 6 and 7, and the w hole of the dispute in the suit before the trial Court was in regard to the possession of the said plot of land and the petitioner had sought for amendment of the written statement to furnish correct description of the plot. In my opinion, there was no justifica­tion to disallow the same. The trial Court, therefore, committed manifest error of law in rejecting the petition. It may also be observed that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the appellate Court had already decided that there appeared to be some mistake and had directed the trial Court to discover the fact itself by appointing an Amin Commission. The said direction of the appellate Court was not challenged by the parties and hence, it was final. It was in fact as a result of enquiry conducted by the trial Court itself in terms of the aforesaid directions that the correct Dag No. of the plot in dispute was ascertained which was sought to be substituted in the written statement. In view of what is stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Gauhati is set aside with a direction to allow the petitioners to amend the written statement. No order as to costs.