Judgment S.B. Sinha, J. This civil revision application arises out of an Order dated 23.12.1988 passed by the Munsif, Patna City in Eviction Title Suit No. 25 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the said learned Court rejected the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner. 2. The aforementioned title suit no. 25 of 1987 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party. Subsequently, another title suit bearing Title Suit No. 64 of 1987 was filed by the wife of the opposite party. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the filing of the written statement in the title suit later and as such, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed to the effect that the subject matter of both title suit no. 25 of 1987 and 64 of 1987 are covered by the same tenancy. Tile application for amendment of the written statement has been rejected by the learned Court below by reason of the impugned order. 3. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that if amendment was allowed, the plaintiff would not suffer prejudice, in view of the fact that the same would be merely eon issue as to where the subject matter of two suits relate to one tenancy or two different tenancies. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, submitted that in Title Suit No. 64 of 1981 the petitioner has filed a written statement and in that written statement the petitioner had admitted the existence of the tenancy between the plaintiff of that suit and the petitioner. He further submitted that in the suit the petitioner has made certain admission with regard to the existence of the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. According to the learned counsel, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Ladha Ram & Co. reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 680 wherein it has been held that a party should not be allowed to resile from admission made by him, the impugned order is justified. In the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, both suits had been filed by the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife. Ltd. and another Vs. Ladha Ram & Co. reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 680 wherein it has been held that a party should not be allowed to resile from admission made by him, the impugned order is justified. In the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, both suits had been filed by the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife. According to the petitioner, which may be correct or may not be correct that at the time of filing of the written statement in the suit he was not aware of the institution of the title suit namely, Title Suit No. 64 of 1987. 5. The question as to whether any admission has been made on behalf of the petitioner either in title suit no. 25 of 1987 or in title suit no. 64 or 1987 would itself be a subject matter of the consideration for the court below at the time of hearing of tile suit. It is now well known by reason of various decisions of the Supreme Court that the courts are liberal in allowing an application for amendment of the pleadings. It is also well known that the Court should be more liberal in allowing an application for amendment of the written statement than allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. In this connection a reference has been made in the case of Syed Abdul Khader vs. Romi Reddy & others reported in A.I.R. 1979 SC 551 and in the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon reported in A.I.R. 1969 SC 1267. So far as admission made by a party is concerned, it can either be resiled from or may be explained away. Reference in this connection has been made in the case of Kiranmal Zumerlal Borana Marwadi Vs. Dhyanoba Bajirao Khot and others reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 462. 6. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the learned court below had committed material irregularity in refusing the prayer for amendment of the written statement. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and leave is granted to the defendant for amendment of tile written statement. This order will, however be subject to the payment of Rs.150/- as costs which should be deposited by the petitioner in the Court below within six weeks from today. 7. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and leave is granted to the defendant for amendment of tile written statement. This order will, however be subject to the payment of Rs.150/- as costs which should be deposited by the petitioner in the Court below within six weeks from today. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be proper that both title suits, namely. Title Suit No. 25 of 1987 and Title Suit No. 64 of 1987 should be heard by the same court one after the other. 8. In view of the fact that both suits are pending in the same court the court below is, therefore, directed to take up both suits for hearing one after the other and pass judgment therein simultaneously. Further in view of the fact that the suits are for eviction of the defendant-petitioner and are of the year, 1987 learned Court below shall give top priority to the aforementioned suits and make all endeavours to dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In this view of the matter this application is allowed with the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs.