JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J 1. The petitioner who is the wife has challenged the order of the trial Judge dated 12-8-88 whereby he refused 10 permit the petitioner to amend or substitute the written statement in a Divorce suit filed by husband Opposite party Having heard Sri Brij Raj Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. D. Pathak learned counsel for the contesting opposite party at length and perusal of materials, various annexure filed alongwith affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. The controversy is as to whether due to the so-called admissions made by the petitioner in the written statement purported to have been filed by her, which is being stoutly denied by the petitioner at every stage and the fact that the petitioner did not press a similar application for amendment on an earlier occasion, the trial court must discard the fresh prayer that said written statement be not relied upon and the petitioner be permitted to substitute or amend it The facts are that Ravindra Singh has filed a suit seeking divorce from the petitioner. There exists a written statement on the record which was purportedly filed on behalf of the petitioner which allegedly contains some admissions of the petitioner. The petitioner has repeatedly denied the voluntary execution of the said written statement and has challenged its genuineness. She prayed for its amendment on an earlier occasion. For some reason it appears, the said application was not pressed. A fresh application was moved for substituting or amending the written statement which prayer has been refused by the impugned order, hence this writ petition. 3. Sri Brij Raj Singh argued that the petitioner was living with the opposite party (husband). She expressed the desire to live with her parents at a much later stage It is argued that when she came to know of the so called written statement she objected and denied its execution. 3. Sri Brij Raj Singh argued that the petitioner was living with the opposite party (husband). She expressed the desire to live with her parents at a much later stage It is argued that when she came to know of the so called written statement she objected and denied its execution. Under the circumstances, it is argued that the court concerned should allow the substitution or amendment of the written statement or else he should permit the petitioner to examine herself on oath on this issue so that a clear finding is arrived at whether the earlier written statement was recorded voluntarily or was surreptitiously filed on her behalf It is further argued that just because on an earlier occasion, an amendment application was not pressed, does not disentitle the petitioner to seek the amendment and, therefore, that application must have been decided on merits by the trial court. 4. Sri S. D. Pathak argued three points in opposition. Firstly, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Rama Shankar's case, 1968 AWR 103. Secondly, substitution of the Written Statement by an altogether new one Is not permissible under the law. Thirdly, there is no substance in the stand taken by the petitioner regarding forgery or fraud and because of contradictions in her applications and affidavts, her case should be thrown out. SRI Brijraj Singh has opposed all the three arguments. It may be stated at the outset that an order may be revisable under Section 115 CPC only when by it the case is decided. The cited case (Rama Shanksr Tiwari Supra) says that where an amendment is allowed or refused it may become a case decided In the instant suit, the amendment was refused not on the ground of no reason having been made out Admittedly, on the first occasion the application for amendment was not pressed and the impugned order has been passed on the basis that the first amendment application was rejected. Therefore, the case of Rama Shankar Tiwari (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Therefore, the case of Rama Shankar Tiwari (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Coming to the second point as to whether substitution of a written Statement by all together a new one is permissible under law or not, the argument is pre-amture and need not be finally decided at this stage It may be emphasized that the impugned older does not in terms reject the prayer for amendment in the Written Statement on the finding that no fraud has been committed or that the earlier Written Statement was a voluntary one Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the case reported in AIR 1950 Mad. 179 is out of context. In the said ruling it was held that there is no provision in the Civil Procedures Code to enable the Court to permit the substitution in toto of one Written Statement for another already filed but it was open to the defendant at the time of the trial of the suit in which the Written Statement was presented to challenge it. In this connection a look may be had on Order 8 Rule 9 CPC The bar to presentation of pleading subsequent to the filing of Written Statement by defendant is subject to the leave of the Court. Therefore, if the court comes to the conclusion that a Written Statement said to have been executed voluntarily was a fraudulent one, it may allow it to be amended by taking recourse to Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The leave of the court which is saved by the said order itself indicates that where interest of justice requires the leave is to be granted. Moreoer, Section 21 of Hindu Marriage Act lays down that 'as far as may be' the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. Needless to say, where the relationship between the husband and wife continued for a long time and a Written Statement is, challenged on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud, it may have to be inquired into and decided at the appropriate stage 6. Needless to say, where the relationship between the husband and wife continued for a long time and a Written Statement is, challenged on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud, it may have to be inquired into and decided at the appropriate stage 6. As regards the last argument that the petitioner says at one place that she had put her signature on blank paper and at another place she alleged to have placed thumb impression, all these are questions of fact to be determined by the court looking into the matter and the relief of seeking an amendment can not be refused merely on these insignificant contradictions Consequently, it must be held that the impugned order dated 12-8-1988 suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record and is not sustainable which is hereby quashed. This writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that the application praying for amendment in the Written Statement may be decided on merits in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above and if the petitioner makes an application for examining herself on oath to justify prayer of substitution of the original Written Statement she may be permitted to do so and after recording an appropriate findings, the matter may be proceeded with in accordance with law. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their costs.