JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.2.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (East), Bhilwara whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner u/O. VI R. 17 r/w. Section 151 CPC was dismissed. 2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against defendant Mohansingh. It was averred by the plaintiff that the suit premises were let out to defendant Mohansingh but he has not paid the rent and has also not vacated the premises after making various efforts. The defendant expired and, therefore, the present suit was lodged against his legal representatives. 3. It was further contended that when PW 1 Mohd. Ahmad was being examined before the Court he made an important disclosure statement. He admitted in his statement that the suit property is registered with Wakf Board, though the trust is its owner. He has further admitted that he is making contribution to the Wakf. On the basis of the above so called admission made by the plaintiff, the defendant moved an application u/O. VI, R. 17 r/w Section 151 CPC for amendment of his written statement by incorporating the plea that plaintiffs are making contribution to the Wakf Board and thus, the present suit is not triable by the Court of the learned Civil Judge. 4. After hearing arguments on the above application, the learned trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that previously also, the plaintiffs made two similar applications, which were rejected. However, the learned trial Court observed that if the defendant can prove the above facts even at the time of arguments, he can be allowed to raise the same. Thus, the application filed by the defendant was rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence this revision. 5. I have heard Mr. Ravi Bhansali, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner and Mr. R.P. Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-non-petitioners and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. Without making reference to the detailed arguments advanced at the bar, I may only refer to the statement of PW 1 Mohd. Ahmad. It is true that while Mohd. R.P. Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-non-petitioners and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. Without making reference to the detailed arguments advanced at the bar, I may only refer to the statement of PW 1 Mohd. Ahmad. It is true that while Mohd. Ahmad was being examined by this Court as PW 1, he made the above admissions that the property in question is registered with the Wakf Board and they are making contribution to the Wakf Board. The defendant is seeking amendment of his written statement in view of the above admissions made by PW 1 Mohd. Ahmad. Thus, I see no reason why the defendant should not be allowed to amend his pleadings and incorporate the above proposed amendment which is supported by PW 1 Mohd. Ahmad. It cannot be gainsaid that the plea proposed to be raised by the defendant is a mixed question of law and fact. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the admissions made by PW 1 Mohd. Ahmad, the question involved is only a pure question of law. He further submitted that his evidence is still to be recorded and he will be in a position to lead evidence on the proposed amendment without prejudice to the plaintiff. The nature of the amendment is such that if the same is allowed, the plaintiff is not taken by any surprise. The proposed amendment would go to the root of the matter and there is no impediment why it should not be allowed. 7. For the above reasons, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order dated 17.2.1995 passed by the learned trial Court. I also allow the proposed amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner by his application u /O. VI R. 17 r/w Section 151 CPC on payment of Rs. 300/- to be paid to the plaintiffs within a period of one month from today. The defendant is also directed to file the amended written statement within one month from today in the learned trial Court.Revision allowed. *******