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), Amrcli, rejeeting 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 28-2-4983, 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 misjoindcr of parties and misjoindcr 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 instalments. Because of their non-cooperative and adverse altitude, 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. 1,000/- in view of his financial position. This written statement was filed on 28th March 1984. ( 4 ) AFTER about 3 years thereafter, the defendant submitted an application Exh. 69 allegedly for amending the writlen statement. He alleged that because of his bedridden condition as a result of a motor accident he had not stated all the relevant facts in his original writtren 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 plaintiff 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 dcfcndcnt wanted to raise a contention 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. In substance however the dcfcndcnt wanted to raise a contention 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 dcfendent did not actually want to amend the written statement but in effect lo file entirely a new written statement would prejudice the case of the plaintiff. 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 dcfcndcnt 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 28-2-83. He also submitted that the defendant had not admitted written statement; he had merely expressed his willingness lo 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 dispulcd agreement, there is no reason why such an amendment should be refused when questions in controversy between the parlies arc required to be dclcrmined from all angles. Mr. P. V. Hathi, learned Advocate appearing for thc 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 vs. 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 rejcclcd the application for amendment on the ground that the dcfendanls wanted lo resile from the admissionns made in paragraph 25 of the original writlen statement and the repudiation of such clear admission was motivalcd to deprive the plaintiff of the valuable right accrued to him. This order was ultimately confirmed by the High Court as well as by thc Supreme Court. This order was ultimately confirmed by the High Court as well as by thc Supreme Court. ( 7 ) SO far as the present case is concerned, Ihe 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. In fact the defcndanl has specifically denied the claim of the plaintiff in paragraph 1. He has narraled 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. 1,000/ -. These averments cannot be described as admissions 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 failed. 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 stated 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. 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 substantial 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 states that the defendant will not apply for any unjustified adjourment during expeditious disposal of the suit by the Trial Court. The 10 year old suit is, therefore, directed to be disposal of as early as possible but not later than 30th June 1983. Writ to be sent forthwith. The applicant-defendant will pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- by way of costs to the opponents. .