ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 29.10.1996, passed by III Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 49-A/94. It involves two matters relating to the distinct subject matter and one composite revision is tiled which is against the rules of the court. However, the matter was admitted and the matter is posted today for hearing. It is not proper to stress upon the maintainability of the composite revision as per rules of the Court. The learned counsel submitted that the first point related to the rejection of amendment application for amendment of the written statement asking withdrawal of the admission in regard to the existence of the firm and its Director. The amendment was rejected by the court on the ground that it was not bonafide. Learned counsel submitted that the basis of the rejection order is not correct and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Panchdeo Narain Shrivastava Vs. Ku. Jyoti Sahay and another A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 462. That the decision does not come to the rescue of the applicant. In that case the High court interfered with the order in revision where against appeal was preferred in the Supreme Court by way of special leave. The Supreme Court in Para 3 stated that even if the High Court was justified in holding that the deletion of the word 'Uterina' has some significance and may work in favour either side to very great extent yet that itself would not provide any justification for rejecting the amendment in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the said case the case of Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji Ram AIR 1978 S.C. 484 was relied upon wherein the Hon'ble C.J. observed that procedural law is intending to facilitate and not to obstruct the Court of substantive justice. But the learned counsel for the respondents contended that by the device of amedment very important admission is being withdrawn. An admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. Therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. The learned trial Judge, granting the application for amendment was satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, amenment of pleading was necessary. An admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. Therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. The learned trial Judge, granting the application for amendment was satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, amenment of pleading was necessary. The High Court in Its revisional jurisdiction for a reason which is untenable ought not to have interfered with the order made by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondents in this connection read one unreported decision of this Court setting aside the order granting amendment in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that we have gone through the judgment. The decision does not lay down any particular principle of law and appears to be a decision on its own facts. And ordinarily, it is well settled that unless there is an error in exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court, the High Court would not interfere with the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. I find no error in the order on this point. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that it was not a Firm. It was a Company which was registered under the Companies Act and as such the entire case set up by the plaintiff has no signification so far as it relates to the Firm No case is made out for interference under section 115 of the C.P.C. 2. The other point relating to the valuation of the suit which hinges upon pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Learned counsel submitted that when the suit was filed the court-fees was paid as per the valuation but subsequently amount of Rs. 2,21,000/- was deposited by the defendant and, therefore, the valuation of the suit becomes Rs. 81,100/- So far as the question of valuation is concerned it does not depend upon the subsequent events. But the court-fees on the plaint depends upon the basis of allegation. I do not find any substance in the submission. In view of the above, the revision being sans merit deserves to be rejected. As the impugned order does not suffer from the jurisdictional error the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Application dismissed