JUDGMENT Leila Seth, (Chief Justice)—The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Bilaspur dated 18th June, 1991 allowing defendants 1 and 2 to file an amended written statement. 2. The plaintiff Mr. Prem Lal, who is respondent No. 1, filed a suit against his father Mr Ram Ditta, his brother Mr Roshan Lal, respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. Mathia, the non-occupancy tenant under Mr Ram Ditta. The suit was for a declaration that the suit property is ancestral and the plaintiff and his father and brother, defendants 1 and 2 are co-parceners and members of a Joint Hindu Family, jointly in possession. He averred that his father was transferring the property in favour of his brother Mr. Roshan Lal and as such he was not bound by such unauthorised transfers. He also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants including defendant No. 3 Mr. Mathia (the petitioner herein) from interfering in any manner in the joint possession of the plaintiff in the house/plot and land. 3. The suit was filed on 24th/27th October, 1988. On 6th January, 1990, all three defendants, that is the father Mr. Ram Ditta, the brother Mr. Roshan Lal and the present petitioner Mr Mathia gave a power of attorney to Mr. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. On the same date, an application was moved under Order 6, Rule 5, C. P. C. for better particulars The said application has been signed by Mr. Roshan Lal on behalf of the defendants. Thereafter a joint written statement signed by all three defendants was filed on 4th August, 1990. In paragraph 5 of the said written statement it is averred as follows : ".........Defendant No. 1 was the sole owner in possession of the land measuring 8-10 bigbas situated in village Badsaur, Plaintiff and defendant No 2 had no right and interest in the same and they were not in possession of the same. Land of village Badsour was damaged on account of heavy rains and land slides. As such defendant No 1 got the same exchanged for 9 bighas of land L e. 5—16 Bighas in Village Panjaitan and 3-4 Bighas in village Batohli, Pargana Bahadurpur Distt Bilaspur. Land of village Badsour was damaged on account of heavy rains and land slides. As such defendant No 1 got the same exchanged for 9 bighas of land L e. 5—16 Bighas in Village Panjaitan and 3-4 Bighas in village Batohli, Pargana Bahadurpur Distt Bilaspur. According to law and as per order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, Defendant No. 1 is an old man The land in villages Panjaitan and Batohli was situated at a very great distance and defendant No. 1 could not manage the same. Defendant No. 1 had therefore given the land to defendant No. 3 as a non-occupancy tenant on payment of rent and defendant No. 3 was in possession of the same as a non-occupancy tenant under defendant No 1 on payment of rent. Defendant No 3 has become owner of the aforementioned land according to law and is in possession of the same as an owner. Under these circumstances plaintiff and defendant No. 2 have no interest or right and are not in possession of this land. Plaintiff is residing separately from defendant No. 1 and he Is not doing any service of any kind and does not help the defendant No. 1 In any way." 4. It is further averred in the said written statement that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 do not have any joint Hindu Family property, nor any ancestral or co-parcenery property. Defendant No I was the sole owner of the house and land which was sub-merged in the Bhakra Dam, which had been brought and built with his own income. Further, land in lieu thereof was not given to defendant No. 1 as karta of a Joint Hindu Family but as an oustee. 5. It is also not fn dispute that Ram Ditta, defendant No. 1, is an educated person and is a retired record keeper from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur and his son Mr. Roshan Lal, defendant No. 2, is a head clerk in the industries Department of Himachal Pradesh Government. 6. The application of defendants 1 and 2 under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P- C. to emend their written statement has to be seen in this background. The law with regard to allowing an amendment is clear. Roshan Lal, defendant No. 2, is a head clerk in the industries Department of Himachal Pradesh Government. 6. The application of defendants 1 and 2 under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P- C. to emend their written statement has to be seen in this background. The law with regard to allowing an amendment is clear. In M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co, Ltd and another v. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co., AIR 19 7 SC 680, it has been observed that the defendants cannot be allowed to change their case completely by way of an amendment by introducing an entirely different new case. It is well settled law that a party cannot be allowed to introduce by way of an amendment Inconsistent pleas and displace admissions made. 7. In the present case defendants 1 and 2 have sought leave to file a separate written statement and/or to amend the written statement denying the tenancy in favour of defendant No. 3 The ground taken in the application is that defendant No. 3 got their signatures on the power of attorney and also on blank papers so that certain admissions regarding tenancy were made in the written statement. The case made out by defendants 1 and 2 is unbelievable. The averments in the written statement are clear and unamiguous. As already mentioned, this written statement is signed by all the three defendants. I have perused the record and find that the signatures are at the top of the page where the written statement ends. It is not a case of trying to adjust the writing so that it may reach the signatures which may have been obtained on blank sheets. Further, defendants I and 2 are not illiterate or uneducated persons. They arc a retired record-keeper and head clerk respectively. The plea of respondents 2 and 3 that the power of attorney was got signed by the petitioner, without their intending to do so is also not acceptable. Admittedly, the power of attorney was signed on 6th January, 1990 and it was respondent No, 3, Roshan Lal, who signed the application under Order 6, Rule 5, C. P. C. on behalf of all the three defendants on that very day. 8. Admittedly, the power of attorney was signed on 6th January, 1990 and it was respondent No, 3, Roshan Lal, who signed the application under Order 6, Rule 5, C. P. C. on behalf of all the three defendants on that very day. 8. Consequently, it appears to me that the admissions made in paragraph 5 of the written statement as above indicated in favour of defendant No. 3, the present petitioner, are absolutely clear. Having affixed their signatures to the said written statement they do not have any right to resile from these admissions unless a case of fraud is made out. It seems that defendants No. 1 and 2 (respondents 2 and 3 herein) are having second thoughts and now trying to make out a case totally inconsistent with their earlier pleadings. This they are not entitled to do. They cannot seek an amendment which is totally inconsistent with their pleadings as this would amount to withdrawal of admissions made by them in their written statement, 9. Therefore, the order dated 18th June, 1991 passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Bilaspur has to be set aside. I order accordingly. As a result, the petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Let the record be sent back forthwith. Petition allowed.