O. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner in this petition had filed a suit being Original suit No. 297 of 1996 for injunction restraining the respondent No. 3 from raising any construction over the abchak land in the south of the petitioners house and from encroaching thereupon, in any manner. The said suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, junior Division, Moradabad. In para 2 of the plaint, it was alleged that on the southern side of the house of the petitioner there is Abchak which is about one meter wide and twenty three meters long and upon which the petitioner is discharging water through his drainage from long before. In para 11 of the plaint, he has claimed that he has easementary right to discharge water on the said abchak. The suit was simple suit for injunction against the private defendant. This amendment was disallowed by the learned trial Court by an order dated 18. 9. 1996. Against the said order dated 18. 9. 1996 a revision was moved being Civil revision No. 126 of 1996. By an order dated 28th May. 1997 the said revision was dismissed and the amendment was disallowed. It is against these orders the present writ petition has been moved. ( 2 ) SRI Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, took a preliminary objection that the original suit being suit for injunction, the writ petition is not maintainable. Inasmuch as in view of the ratio decided in the case of Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur, wherein it has been held that the suit for injunction is in effect a relief against the private person and, therefore, no writ can be maintained in respect of such suit. In order to obviate the difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Dhruva Narayana, sought for leave to amend the writ petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the facts and circumstances of the case, leave is granted. ( 3 ) SRI Dhruva Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order refusing amendment is wholly illegal and irregular. In fact both the learned courts below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them. Therefore, the said orders are to be set aside. Inasmuch as by reason of amendment neither nature nor character of the suit is changed. In fact both the learned courts below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them. Therefore, the said orders are to be set aside. Inasmuch as by reason of amendment neither nature nor character of the suit is changed. May be an alternative case has been made out. The suit remains suit for injunction. The only alternative ground or pleading, as sought to be made out in respect of relief for injunction. Even then according to him no relief in the form of declaration of right has been asked for. The simple prayer made in the plaint is that of injunction and nothing else. Therefore, reliance having placed on the decision in the case of Shri Niwas Ram kumar v. Mahavir Prasad and Ors, he contends that even alternative pleadings are permissible. ( 4 ) SRI Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand contends that in para 11 of the plaint the petitioner having admitted to have easementary right he cannot withdraw such an admission and plead ownership and thereby introduced either inconsistent case or withdraw the admission. He relied upon, in support of his contention, in the decisions, namely : Munnilal Sahu v. District Judge, Jhansi; Shri Kishan Lal v. Shri Rajan and Rampal Singh v. Zafar ahmad. A perusal of the plaint and comparison thereof with the amendment sought for reveals that in para 2 where the petitioner had contended that there is a abchak in the south of the petitioners residence where the petitioner is discharging water through drainage, he seeks amendment by incorporating the statement to the extent that the said abchak belongs to the petitioner and that thereon no drain of Sri Manmohan krishna Khanna, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 3 had any drain at any point of time. It appears that having regard to the statement made in para 11 of the plaint, the petitioner has sought to make out an alternative case of ownership in respect of the relief for injunction. While in para 11 of the plaint, he has pleaded easementary right to discharge water. In fact, the inconsistency pleaded in the plaint but that too in respect of relief of injunction only without seeking any relief in the form of declaration. It would be open to the defendant to contest the case and to prove that the petitioner is not owner. In fact, the inconsistency pleaded in the plaint but that too in respect of relief of injunction only without seeking any relief in the form of declaration. It would be open to the defendant to contest the case and to prove that the petitioner is not owner. By reason thereof, no prejudice is being caused on the defendant. At the same time, by reason of such amendment neither nature nor character of the suit is being changed inasmuch as the suit remains suit for injunction and no additional relief is also being claimed in the form of declaration or otherwise. In a suit for injunction, that may also not be necessary, whether it is necessary or not that can be decided at the time of hearing of the suit which can very well be agitated by either of the parties. It appears from the decision in the case of Shri niwas Ram Kumar (supra) as has been held by the Apex Court as under:"a plaintiff may rely upon different rights alternatively and there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code to prevent a party from making two or more inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming relief thereunder in the alternative. "therefore, it cannot be said that inconsistent pleading cannot be made. On the other hand, the said judgment also permits inconsistent prayer. But in the present case, there is no inconsistency in the prayer. On the other hand, it has been sought to be founded on two alternative grounds. ( 5 ) SRI Mishra, learned counsel contends that admission cannot be withdrawn since the plaintiff has already admitted. It is not open to him to withdraw admission of easementary right and claim ownership. In the case of Rampal Singh (supra), as cited by him, admission was with regard to the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and by the amendment he sought to resile from the admission and deny relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. This plea is altogether changed the nature and character of relationship and. therefore, was not allowed. The facts of the said case is altogether different from here, since there is no right of declaration of relationship is involved in the present case. Therefore, the ratio decided in the said case does not help Sri Mishra. This plea is altogether changed the nature and character of relationship and. therefore, was not allowed. The facts of the said case is altogether different from here, since there is no right of declaration of relationship is involved in the present case. Therefore, the ratio decided in the said case does not help Sri Mishra. ( 6 ) THE next case cited by Sri Mishra in munnilal Sahu (supra), also does not help, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as in the said case the defendant had claimed to be tenant in respect of open piece of land and had denied the plaintiffs case. Whereas subsequently he wanted to amend his written statement and claimed that he was also a tenant in respect of two rooms standing on the said property adjacent to the open land. The property was also sought to be changed altogether namely adding two rooms adjacent to the open land, therefore, such admission was not allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment. ( 7 ) THE third case relied by Sri Mishra being of Sri Kishan Lal (supra) also does not help, in the facts and circumstances of the case. In asmuch as their admission which was sought to be withdrawn by way of amendment was disallowed on the ground of inordinate delay and on the ground that it was motivated by mala fides. That is not a case here. Therefore the ratio decided cannot be attracted, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the other hand, in the case of basedeo Narain v. Km. Jyoti Sahai, the apex Court held that admission made by a party may be withdrawn. Therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment, an admission of the fact cannot be withdrawn. It was observed in the said judgment that admission can be withdrawn. In the case of Kishanlal Singh (supra), the said decision was cited and distinguished on the ground that in the said case amendment sought for was not necessary to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. On the other hand, in the present case, it is necessary to adjudicate upon the real dispute. But then it is not a case of withdrawal of admission and on the other hand, it is a case where two alternative cases have been made out. On the other hand, in the present case, it is necessary to adjudicate upon the real dispute. But then it is not a case of withdrawal of admission and on the other hand, it is a case where two alternative cases have been made out. Therefore, the ratio decided in the case of Kishanlal (supra), does not apply, in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 8 ) IN that view of the matter, the amendment should have been allowed. The impugned orders dated 18. 9. 1996 and 28. 5. 1997 respectively, Annexures 4 and 5 are, therefore, liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The amendment is allowed. The amendment should be incorporated in the plaint within a period of two weeks by the plaintiff from the date the defendant may file additional written statement within a period of eight weeks from date. The hearing of the suit may be expediated. ( 9 ) WITH these observation this petition is disposed off. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .