Honble YADAV, J.–The present revision petition is posted today for admission but looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties I propose to decide it on merits. (2). Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3). Perused the order impugned passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.1, Bikaner in Case No. 819/93, whereby the application under 0.6 R.17 read with Sec.151 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected on the ground that the amendment which was sought by defendant revisionist in his written statement is admitted by the plaintiff himself and therefore the amendment in the written statement is not necessary. (4). It is candidly admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that it is settled principle of law that no party can be allowed to travel beyond his pleadings and any evidence adduced beyond pleadings is not permissible in evidence. However, it is urged by him that if the written statement is not amended in the present case then he cannot be allowed to adduce evidence in support of it which will cause prejudice to revisionist. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the plaintiff non petitioner can be easily compensated by costs for his inconvenience. (5). The aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is refuted by the learned counsel for plaintiff non petitioner by inviting my attention to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that no fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which, by any rule or pleading enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings, provided that the Court may in its discretion require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions. (6). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. (6). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. I am of the opinion that the amendment application moved by the defendant under 0.6R.17 read with Sec. 151 CPC should not have been rejected merely on the basis of Sec. 58 of the Indian Evidence Act looking into the law relating to the pleadings and the fact that the non petitioner can be compensated for the inconvenience caused to him. (7). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, i am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the amendment application moved by defendant revisionist in his written statement provided he deposits Rs. 1100/- as costs within one month from today. The plaintiff-non-petitioner would be at liberty to file replication to the amendment sought by the defendant in his written statement within one month thereafter. (8). With the aforesaid observation, the instant revision petition is finally disposed of.