JUDGMENT 1. - These three revisions have been directed against the order of learned District Judge, Balotra, who is hearing Civil Regular Appeals in all the three cases. There are three different appeals viz. 34/95, 9/96 and 10/96 in which application to amend pleading of Smt. Sugni Devi has been rejected. In appeals No. 34/95 and 10/96 Smt. Sugni Devi is defendant appellant and in appeal No. 9/96 she is plaintiff appellant. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in details. 3. Navratanmal filed a suit on the averments that his house was situated on Hospital Road, Pachpadra and on the western side of this house Smt. Sugni had illegal possession over the land. In the patta of Navratanmal an open land of Pratapmal was shown. This Pratapmal died. He left no successor. This plot was being used as road. This land was sold to Smt. Sugni Devi by the Panchayat with collusion. Gate and windows of Navratanmal were opened on this side. Smt. Sugni wanted to close them and when her attention was drawn towards it, she started quarrelling. Navratanmal then filed a suit for permanent injunction. Smt. Sugni Devi pleaded that the plot was allotted to her by the Gram Panchayat and she has constructed a house thereon. She also left some open land and that in her patta the door and window of Navratanmal are not shown and that it was a panchayat land on the front side of the house of Navratanmal over which he has no right or title. Decree for permanent injunction was issued against which Smt. Sugni filed appeal and this appeal is numbered as 34/ 95. 4. Facts in appeal No. 9/96 are that plaintiff Smt. Sugni Devi had filed a suit against Gram Panchayat for permanent injunction that she may not be evicted from the suit land. The property where her house was constructed was in her possession since times immemorial and it was in the year 1986 the Gram Panchayat executed sale deed in her favour. By way of amendment she wanted to say that the land belonged to one Pratapmal son of Jabarmal and she was in possession of the same and had adverse possession and that the Gram Panchayat could not evict her from that property. 5. By way of amendment she wanted to say that the land belonged to one Pratapmal son of Jabarmal and she was in possession of the same and had adverse possession and that the Gram Panchayat could not evict her from that property. 5. In appeal No. 10/96, it may be stated that it was Navratanmal who filed a suit against Gram Panchayat and Sugni Devi alleging that the plot sold to Smt. Sugni Devi was illegally sold to her and that the sale deed No. 23 dated 5-5-1986 be declared null and void and that the possession of Smt. Sugni Devi be declared as illegal and she may be removed from the property. This suit was decreed against which appeal was filed. 6. Now in all the three cases Smt. Sugni Devi wants amendment in her pleadings to the effect that the plot was never a part of the property of the Gram Panchayat and that she was not liable to be evicted from the property. 7. Learned District Judge was of the opinion that such an amendment in the pleading was against the earlier pleading. On the one hand the case of Smt. Sugni Devi was that she purchased the land from Gram Panchayat but now she wants to change it and such a permission could not be given. Counsel for Smt. Sugni Devi submitted that such an amendment was necessary in the pleadings in order to decide the real controversy in question. Counsel for the petitioner relying on an unreported judgment in SB Civil Revision No. 811/1996, Gangadhar v. Jhabar Mal, decided on 20-7-1998 , submitted that there are subsequent events in the matter which can be allowed to become the part of pleadings in a suit. In the citation relied by the learned counsel the facts are that at the time of filing of the suit for eviction his sons were minors who had grown up by the time the appeal was being heard. His need was aggravated and that the defendant had committed default. These amendments were based on subsequent events and were allowed. This citation does not apply to the present case. Here, if the amendment is allowed, it will be an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea taken by Smt. Sugni Devi which contained an admission in favour of the opposite party. These amendments were based on subsequent events and were allowed. This citation does not apply to the present case. Here, if the amendment is allowed, it will be an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea taken by Smt. Sugni Devi which contained an admission in favour of the opposite party. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, RLW 1998 (1) SC 70 , held that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, by amendment such admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. Such an amendment which tends to change the entire written statement and has been moved to delay disposal of the case is liable to be rejected. It was so held in Gopi Kishan v. Bajrang Lal, 1996 (2) WLC (Raj) 585 . It is settled law that the amendment which aimed at withdrawing the admission made earlier should not be allowed. Reference can be made to Vaidhya Shyam Sunder Joshi v. Jain Vishwa Bharti Ladnu, 1998 RRD 457 , and State of Rajasthan v. Ishwar Dass, 1996 (1) RLW (Raj) 116 . These citations have been relied by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of this case though the law of amendment might be lenient, but the circumstances do not entitle the petitioner for amendment in the pleadings. The appellate Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in the order. 8. Consequently, there is no force in these revisions. They are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Revisions dismissed. *******