JUDGMENT 1. THIS Revisional Application is directed against Order No. 41 dated 8. 8. 1985, passed by the 1st Court of Munsiff, Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 94 of. 1981, allowing the amendment of the written Statement. 2. TO embark on an enquiry, about the fate of the rival claims, a brief synopsis of the fact, in my view is essential. The suit is a chronic dispute between the Landlord and the Tenant where the petitioner sought for eviction of the opposite party who succeeded to the tenancy after the demise of Girija Bhusan Chatterjee who was a monthly tenant of a portion of Premises No. 53a, Charak Danga Road, P. S. Belliaghata subject to payment of Rs. 50/- as rent per month payable according to English calendar. 3. DURING the currency of the suit the opposite parties 12 and 13 sold their right, title and interest in respect of the property. But an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 10, however, succeeded. The opposite party, thereafter, put in a written Statement which was very much laconic in its approach but for elucidation of their claim in order to resist the onslaught of the allegations of the petitioner, another written Statement was put in which the Id. Court; below allowed. 4. THIS became the source of anxiety of the petitioner which drove her to this Court for redress of her grievances as the amendment of the written Statement will outweigh the claim of the petitioner. The point for decision in this case is if the order complained of could be interfered with by the Court of Revision. The ld. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Banerjee has made a forceful contention that amendment of the written Statement after the filing of the written Statement will launch the plaintiff-petitioner into great disadvantage as the facts set out in the plaint, since not trammelled by the opposite party may likely to steel a march against the right of the plaintiff. The facts, since not disputed in the original written Statement, the. doctrine of non-traverse is to dominate the field. The opposite party in apprehension of such doctrine has put in the amended written statement which is pre-eminently a bar. The amended written Statement will work injustice on the plaintiff petitioner about the case made out in the plaint following which the petitioner has sought for a decree of eviction. 5. doctrine of non-traverse is to dominate the field. The opposite party in apprehension of such doctrine has put in the amended written statement which is pre-eminently a bar. The amended written Statement will work injustice on the plaintiff petitioner about the case made out in the plaint following which the petitioner has sought for a decree of eviction. 5. THE Id. Advocate for the petitioner has relied on three decisions to attack the order impugned: 6. THE first case relied upon by him is the case of Bhuramal Agarwalla. vs. Scania Dalurband Coal Co. Ltd, and Ors. 82 CWN, 1. The ratio decidendi of that decision as held by the Court was that leave to amend the written Statement should not be granted if the amendment would con very the defence into another of different and inconsistent character. The next case relied on by him is the case of Swan Singh and Ors. vs Radha Kishan and Ors. AIR 1980, HP 8. The Court rejected the amendment as the pleas were new and ran counter to the original written statement. 7. THE last case relied on by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner is the case In re: Bhowanipore Gujrati Education Society, 1993 (II) C. H. N., 88, where the Court held that admission should not be allowed to be withdrawn unless such admission was made inadvertently and erroneously. But, his Lordship did not rule out amendment of the written statement, where admission could be withdrawn subject to the sufficient cause shown and the same when did not suffer from mala fide. 8. THE three decisions thus cited by Mr. Banerjee constitute a stumbling block for amendment of the written statement. It is a lamp which ways down the guiding factors for amendment of the pleadings. I have meticulously gone through the decisions cited by him but the ratio decidendi of the decisions cited mainly verge on the principle that the court should be circumspect not to allow such amendments which will work injustice on the party. I have walked through the bosom of the plaint and the written statement but I do not find that the amended written statement will spring any surprise: on the case of the plaintiff-petitioner nor the facts set out therein could occur any change to the nature and character of the suit. 9. MR. I have walked through the bosom of the plaint and the written statement but I do not find that the amended written statement will spring any surprise: on the case of the plaintiff-petitioner nor the facts set out therein could occur any change to the nature and character of the suit. 9. MR. Banerjee has confined his argument mainly to Order 8 1 Rule 5. He has sedulously cultivated that the doctrine of non-traverse is to hold the field in the background of the facts not being disputed in the original written statement. But I am not unmindful that amendment of the pleadings could be availed of at any stage and Order 8 Rule 5 can never be an insurmountable bar for amendment of the pleadings for the expressions used in Order 6 Rule 17, "at any stage of the proceedings". Therefore, Order 8 Rule 5 cannot govern Order 6 Rule 17. 10. INCIDENTALLY, if I glance at the principle of law laid down in Panchdeo Narain Sriaastava vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay, AIR, 1983 S. C. 462, it reveals that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or Today be explained away. Therefore, it is not legitimate to contend that exclusion or omission in the original written statement by the defendant Could operate as an admission of fact which could never be withdrawn. Mr. Banerjee is very much local that admission in the written statement if allowed to be withdrawn will place the plaintiff between the two horns. But, after going through the provisions of the several statutes, can it be said with a degree of precision that the original written statement comes within the fold of admission? According to Black's Law Dictionary, admission is the acknowledgement or recognition by one party of the truth of some matter alleged by the opposite party, made in a pleading, the effect of which is to narrow the area of facts or allegations required to be proved by evidence. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleadings is required are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleadings. But the original written statement by the reason of its brevity was sought to be remedied after recourse to the Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C. P. C. 11. IN my view, it is an amplification of a laconic written statement by way of amendment. But the original written statement by the reason of its brevity was sought to be remedied after recourse to the Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C. P. C. 11. IN my view, it is an amplification of a laconic written statement by way of amendment. Thus, the plea of admission stands exploded by the materials on record both overt and covert. 12. MORE so, the petitioner is to succeed on his own facts set out in the plaint. He cannot reap the benefit of the written statement independent of his right claimed in the suit. Even the weakness of the written statement cannot fuel the claim of the plaintiff who stands on his own leg. In my view, it is a vain plea of the petitioner that he will be deprived of the admission made by the defendant for the brevity of the written statement. He is lamenting over a matter which is in a fluid state. He is exaggerating his right of proportion, thus. The Id. Counsel for the opposite party equally relied on a large number of decisions. I do not like to burden my order with those decisions as the principle of law relating to amendment of the pleadings has been well settled which has not been disturbed by the flow of judgments passed by the different High Courts of our Country including the apex court. The petitioner will not be displaced by the amended written statement. 13. BEFORE I close, I like to add a few words that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and must come within the fold of Clause (a) and Clause (b) of the proviso inserted by the Amendment Act, 1976 to Section 115 (1 ). Assuming for the sake of argument that order impugned was wrong or illusory, the Id Counsel even then could not satisfy me as to how the order could occasion failure of justice or inflict any injury which would be beyond repair. Such being the position, the revisional application is also not maintainable on this ground too. 14. AFTER having considered the submissions of the rival parties and after having through the materials on record, it is not a case where revisional power could be exercised to interfere within the order as there is no wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the Ld. Such being the position, the revisional application is also not maintainable on this ground too. 14. AFTER having considered the submissions of the rival parties and after having through the materials on record, it is not a case where revisional power could be exercised to interfere within the order as there is no wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the Ld. Court below nor any wrong assumption of fact made by the Court. In the result, the revision fails but considering the circumstances without costs. Revision rejected.