C. V. JANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Amreli rejecting the application Exh. 69 for amendment of the written statement in Special Civil Suit No. 97 of 1983 ( 2 ) THE opponents in this Revision Application have filed Special Civil Suit No 97/1983 against the applicant for recovering certain amounts with interest On the basis of a writing executed by him as a result of agreement between the parties on 28 on which date the partnership between them came to be dissolved ( 3 ) THE applicant filed his written statement at Exh. 48 He did not admit the plaintiffs claim and contended that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action He contended that the plaintiffs had managed to place him in a financially embarrassing position compelling him to agree to pay the amount due to them by instalment Because of their non-cooperative and adverse attitude as alleged by the defendant he was unable to run the business profitably He averred that he is willing to pay the amount that may be found due to the plaintiffs but he should be granted monthly instalments of Rs. 1 0 in view of his financial position. This writing statement was filed on 28/03/1984 ( 4 ) AFTER about 3 years thereafter the defendant submitted an application Exh. 69 allegedly for amending the written statement. He alleged that because of his bedridden condition as a result of a motor accident he had not staled all the relevant facts in his original written statement Exh. 48 and if he referred to the facts which he now wanted to bring on record in his statement at the time of leading evidence the plaintiffs would object to the same on the ground that such a case was not pleaded in the written statement. The defendant by this amendment wanted to pages and which refers to certain facts prior and subsequent to the execution of the document in question In substance however the defendent wanted to raise a convention that his signature was taken on the disputed document because of misrepresentation and false assurances given by the plaintiffs He contended that he was not liable as per the alleged agreement dated 28-2-1983. ( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that the defendant did not actually want to amend the written statement but in effect to file entirely a new written statement would prejudice the case of the plaintiffs. It is this order which is being challenged in this Revision Application ( 6 ) MR. S. M. Shah learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that by the proposed amendment the defendant did not withdraw any admission alleged to have been made by him but he was merely stating new facts in order to explain the execution of the document dated 28-2-1983 He also submitted that the defendant had not admitted written statement; he had merely expressed his willingness to pay the amount which may found due to the plaintiffs by instalments He further submitted that if he wants to bring on record certain facts which may throw light on the execution of the disputed agreement there is no reason why such an amendment should be refused when questions in controversy between the parties are required to be determined from all angles Mr. P. V. Hathi learned Advocate appearing for the opponents on the other hand claim in their original written statement and he cannot now be permitted to resile from the admissions made by him He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. and Another v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Company ( AIR 1977 SC 680 ) In the case of M/s. Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. the defendants had applied for deletion of paragraphs 25 and 26 of the original written statements and by substitution of two new paragraphs. The Trial Court rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the defendants wanted to resile from the admissions made in paragraph 25 of the original written statement and the repudiation of such clear admission was motivated to deprive the plaintiff of the valuable right accrued to him. This order was ultimately confirmed by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court ( 7 ) SO far as the present case is concerned the principle stated in the case of M/s. Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) would not come into play inasmuch as there is no clear cut admission made by the defendant in his original written statement. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) would not come into play inasmuch as there is no clear cut admission made by the defendant in his original written statement. In fact the defendant has specifically denied the claim of the plaintiffs in paragraph 1 He has narrated the adverse steps taken by the plaintiffs against him which resulted in great financial embarrassment for him He expressed his willingness to pay the amount which may be found due but requested for monthly instalments of Rs. 1 0 These averments cannot be described as admission on the part of defendant Moreover the defendant does not want to resile from any of these averments He is still prepared to pay the amount found to be due to the plaintiffs by instalments Moreover he does not want to delete any of the averments made in the original written statement and to substitute them by new averments. The principles stated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case therefore would not apply to the present case ( 8 ) NOW the question which remains to be considered is whether a new written statement can be permitted to be filed Order VIII Rule 9 provides for presenting an additional written statement by leave of the Court Such an application for leave has to be considered from entirely a different angle Granting leave to file additional written statement or to bring additional facts on record by pleading would not mean that the Court will always accept them as true. The parties will lead evidence regarding the facts staled in the original written statement as well as the new written statement and on appreciation of evidence the Court will be able to judge whether the facts brought on record pursuant to the new written statement deserve to be accepted as credible or whether they discredit the defence version Granting the application to bring such additional written statement or permitting the defence to amend the written statement would merely give him an opportunity to prove his case and bring the truth to light ( 9 ) HENCE this Revision Application will have to be allowed Since the suit was filed as back as in the year 1983 and the additional written statement was proposed to be filed in the year 1986 i. e. about three years after filing of the original written statement the defendant will have to be saddled with sustained costs for the delay which has resulted ultimately in disposal of the suit ( 10 ) RULE is therefore made absolute The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Amreli below application Exh. 69 is set aside and the application Exh. 69 is allowed. The applicant-defendant will carry out the amendment on the first adjournment after intimation Mr. S. M. Shah learned Advocate for the applicant slates that the defendant will not apply for any unjustified adjournment during expeditious disposal of the suit by the Trial Court. The 10 old suit is therefore directed to be disposal of as early as possible but not later than 30/06/1983 Writ to be sent forthwith The applicant-defendant will pay an amount of Rs. 2 0 by way of costs to the opponents petition allowed. .