JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. —This revision is directed against the order dated 12-2-1996 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Sundernagar, District Mandi H.P. By means of impugned order, application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. filed by the petitioners, has been rejected. 2. In order to properly appreciate the respective submissions, a few facts relevant for determination of this revision need to be noticed. Petitioner No. 1 purchased 1 bigha 11 biswas and 3 biswansi of land, hereinafter referred to as the suit land, from Smt Fagni Devi petitioner No. 2. This sale has been questioned by Devi Ram and four others arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 5 in this revision, who before the trial Court filed a suit for declaration and possession by way of ejectment of a part of this land In this suit issues were framed as far back as on 23-8-1994 and respondents No.1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have concluded their evidence as on 6-12-1994. Record of the case shows that the case was listed for the evidence of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) on 22-4-1995 and thereafter on 8-6-1993 when on both these occasions, no evidence on their behalf was present nor any such evidence had been brought by the defendants. Similarly, list of witnesses as required under Order 16, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. was also not filed Instead on 8-6-1995 an application under Order 14, Rule 5, C.P.C was filed which was finally disposed of on 16-8-1995 when Issues No. 6 and 8 were recast. Since the onus on these issues was placed upon the plaintiffs, the case was adjourned for the said purpose. On 5-9-1995 itself on a prayer having been made on behalf of the defendants, case was adjourned to 25-9-1995 for filing an application for amendment of written statement, Such an application was filed on 20-10-1995 and by means of impugned order, the said application has been rejected Threefold prayer was made in the application for amendment of written statement. 3. Existing preliminary objection N> 3 was proposed to be substituted with the following effect : "The plaintiffs during the period of last more than 20 years after the death of Sh. 3. Existing preliminary objection N> 3 was proposed to be substituted with the following effect : "The plaintiffs during the period of last more than 20 years after the death of Sh. Hirdu and attestation of the Mutation No. 449 of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 have failed to raise any objection against the same, although they were aware of this entries, rather the plaintiff No. 1 himself has negotiated for the purchase of the share of the defendant No. 2 and further by their own acts and conducts they have represented to the defendant No. 1 and public in general that the defendant No. 2 is absolute owner in possession of the suit property, as such the plaintiffs are estopped by their own acts and conducts to file the present suit and to challenge the validity of the sale of the suit land in favour of the defendant No 1.” Similarly in reply to paragraph 2 of the written statement on merits, following was proposed to be added : "However, the ancestral nature of the suit land is not admitted and the suit property was self acquired property of late Shri Hirdu and the averments to the contrary are not admitted. " Existing paragraph 8 of the written statement was proposed to be substituted with the following : "Para No. 8 of the written statement is admitted to the extent that the suit land was sold to the defendant No.1 by a registered sale deed as alleged and in pursuance of the said sale deed the possession of the suit land was also delivered to the defendant No.1. The rest of the averments made in this para of the plaint are wrong and not admitted. The sale of the suit land in favour of the defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1 is perfectly valid and legal and the defendant No. 1 is now the absolute owner in possession of the suit land. The rest of the averments made in this para of the plaint are wrong and not admitted. The sale of the suit land in favour of the defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1 is perfectly valid and legal and the defendant No. 1 is now the absolute owner in possession of the suit land. In the alternative it is submitted that the plaintiffs by their own acts and conducts and their dealing with the defendant No.1 respecting the suit property during the period of last 20 years have represented to the defendant No. 1 and to the general public that the defendant No.2 is the absolute owner is possession of the suit property and further the plaintiffs have failed to raise any objection against these entries at the earliest available opportunity and all this conduct of the plaintiffs have led the defendant to believe that the defendant No.2 is the real owner of the suit property. The defendant No.1 by acting like a prudent purchaser and after making reasonable and detailed enquiries about the title of the defendant No. 2 in the suit land has purchased the same for valuable consideration at the prevailing market price, as-such the defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and the sale of the suit land in her favour is perfectly valid and binding upon the plaintiffs as well as the whole world." 4. Here it may also be worth while to notice that common written statement was filed by the defendants and the application for amending the written statement was filed only by defendant No. 1 i.e. Smt Mathura Devi, although alongwith the present revision petition an affidavit of defendant No. 2 Fagni Devi has been filed, wherein amongst other things, it has been stated that she is a consenting party to the amendment of written statement as proposed by the other defendant Mathura Devi. It is in the aforesaid background that after rejection of the application for amendment of written statement present revision petition came up to be filed. It is in the aforesaid background that after rejection of the application for amendment of written statement present revision petition came up to be filed. Shri Sharwan Dogra, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants in support of this revision forcefully urged that so far as proposed amendments are concerned, they are necessary, besides being required for settling the controversy at rest between the parties as well as for doing substantial justice between them According to Shri Sharwan Dogra, the legitimate aim of rules of procedure is to ensure that all disputes between the parties concerned are settled once for all according to him proposed amendments do not in any manner alter the defence set up by the defendants as also are merely clarificatory In addition to this, such amendments only further elaborate the pleas already raised by his clients in their written statement. On the other hand, Shri Subhash Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff No. 1 has urged that the proposed amendments will completely displace his client from admission made by the defendants in written statement, besides this, it was urged by Shri Subhash Sharma that the defendants want to introduce by way of amendment a plea of admission into denial which h inconsistent plea and also displaces the admission made by the defendants. Thus, he urged for dismissal of the revision petition while upholding the order passed by the trial Court 5. In support of his contention, Shri Sharwan Dogra, placed reliance in case Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and another, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 303 and submitted that ever’ an admission can be explained and inconsistent pleas could be taken up in pleadings and on the basis of such judgment, he pointed out that there is no force in the submissions made on behalf of plaintiff Devi Ram 6. On the other hand, Shri Subhash Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff placed reliance on a decision of this Court in case Mathia v Prem Lal and others, 1992 (2) Sim LC 292, as also in case M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co, Ltd and another v Mis. Ladha Ram and Co., AIR 1977 SC 680. On the basis of these two decisions as well as on the basis of the pleadings of the defendants, he prayed for dismissal of the revision in question. 7. Ladha Ram and Co., AIR 1977 SC 680. On the basis of these two decisions as well as on the basis of the pleadings of the defendants, he prayed for dismissal of the revision in question. 7. It may be appropriate to mention that so far as the decision reported in case Akshya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and another (supra) is concerned it is a judgment of its own facts and thus no benefit can be derived by the defendants from the said judgment. On the other hand, when a reference is made to case M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co Ltd and another v. Mis Ladha Ram and Co. and case Mathia v Prem Lai and others (supra), both these cases are nearer to the facts of the present case The Hon’ble apex Court in the earlier judgment in case M/s. Modi Spinning and another v. M/s. Ladha ram and Co. has observed in para 8,9 and 10 as under : "8. The high Court on revision affirmed the judgment of the trial Court and said that by means of amendment the defendants wanted introduce an entirely different case and if such amendments were permitted it would prejudice the other side. 9. The decision of the trial Court is correct. The defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the case made in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case, 10. It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paragraphs 25 and 26 is riot making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admission made by the defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. The High Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the trial Court." After placing reliance on this judgment of the Apex Court, the learned Chief Justice of this Court in case Mathia v Prem Lal and others, 1992(2) Sim LC 292, has rejected the prayer for amendment made. The High Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the trial Court." After placing reliance on this judgment of the Apex Court, the learned Chief Justice of this Court in case Mathia v Prem Lal and others, 1992(2) Sim LC 292, has rejected the prayer for amendment made. Learned Counsel for the defendants vehemently urged that this Court should and is bound to follow the case Akshaya Restaurant v P Anjanappa and another (supra) being the later in point of time in preference to the decision rendered in case M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co, Ltd. and another v Mis Ladha Ram and Co. (supra) which is earlier in point of time. In this context, it may be appropriate to mention that the decision of case Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and another (supra) is by two Honble Judges of the Apex Court, whereas decision in case M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s Ladha Ram and Co. (supra) is by three Honble Judges of the Apex Court What is the course to be followed in such like situation, a reference can usefully be made to the observation made in case The State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547, relevant observation is : "22 ....................... It is also to be borne in mind that even in cases where a High Court finds any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller benches of this Court, it cannot disregard or skirt the views expressed by the larger benches. The proper course for a High Court in such a case, as observed by this Court in Union of India v K.S. Subramanian (Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1975 decided on July 30, 1976) to which one of us was a party is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law is followed by this Court itself.” The earlier decision of the Apex Court by three Judges, which judgment was not brought to the notice of the Bench which passed the decision in case Akshaya Restaurant v P. Anjanappa and another (supra). What is the position in such like circumstances needs hardly to be explained. What is the position in such like circumstances needs hardly to be explained. In this view of the matter also the plea of Sharwan Dogra that this Court should follow the later decision in my view does not hold good and has been raised simply to be rejected 8. After following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of Apex Court which is followed by this Court in the case Mathia v. Prem Lal and others (supra), I am of the view that proposed additions by way of amendment to paragraph 2 of the written statement on merits cannot be allowed. This is so because in accordance with law of pleadings as well as Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the contents of para 2 of the plaint on merits shall be deemed to have been admitted by the defendants in their written statement, 9. So far as the substitution of the existing preliminary Issue No. 3 is concerned, even without its being substituted the defendants will be well advised to lead evidence in support of their plea of estoppel and the plaintiffs cannot object to such evidence being led after having opposed the prayer of the defendants made In that behalf and it is ordered accordingly. 10. A reference to proposed substitution of paragraph 8 of written statement by deleting the existing para 8 of the written statement is not in consonance with the original defence set up by the defendants, as such this amendment has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this revision petition is dismissed. Ex parte interim order passed by this Court on 17-3-1996 is hereby vacated. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30-6-1997. Since from record, it is evident that defendants have nor filed the list of witnesses in accordance with Order 16, Rule 1 C.P.C. it is expected that the Court below would proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law so far the matter relating to examination of defendants’ evidence is concerned. Since from record, it is evident that defendants have nor filed the list of witnesses in accordance with Order 16, Rule 1 C.P.C. it is expected that the Court below would proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law so far the matter relating to examination of defendants’ evidence is concerned. Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to observe that it is high time that the Courts below look at the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure in the context of the present case Order 16 thereof Salutary purpose of enacting this provision was to cut short they time consumed by the parties as also they know as to what witness is going to be examined by the opposite side arid on what point/issue. By section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No 104 of 1976) provision was made for filing list of witnesses on a date which the Court may appoint and not later than 15 days on which the issues are settled that the parties to file a list of witnesses which they propose to call to either give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summons to such of their attendance in the Court, fn the event of a party being desirous of obtaining a summon for the attendance of any person, the party concerned fa required to file an application stating, therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. It is more than 10 years that this provison was brought on the statute book, however experience shows that the same is still being treated as nonest, At least by adhering to this provision and other provisions of C.P.C as also other laws applicable to the facts of a case, some time of the Court as well as that of the parties can be saved which would be in consonance with the public policy as well as a step in the direction of expeditious administration of justice. Registry will ensure that the record is despatched well in time so as to reach the trial Court before the date fixed. Costs on the parties. Revision petition dismissed.