Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-1997 by District Judge, Shahdol in Civil Suit No. 38-A/1993 whereby the application (Annexure A/5) under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 9 C. P. C. by defendant No. 1/ non-applicant No. 2 herein, Jitendra Kumar, was allowed and he was permitted to file additional written statement. ( 2. ) FACTS leading to the present revision petition are : Undisputably, the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement allegedly entered into between him and deceased defendant Smt. Gyani Bai. The plaint is annexure-A/2. It was averred therein by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 that there was an oral agreement between him and deceased defendant Gyanibai, whereby the latter agreed to sell the suit-house to him. Subsequently, on 10-8-1993, the agreement as above was reduced into writing in which the present defendant/non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar also appended his signature, as attesting witness. It was also alleged that the sale-deed was to be executed after obtaining permission from the Collector, Shahdol, as per requirement of the amended Section 165 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. It was further averred that subsequently, defendants 1 and 2, despite protests by plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 executed a registered sale-deed dated 8-10-1993 in favour of defendant/petitioner Hansa Devi. An application for temporary injunction was also filed praying that the defendants be restrained from carrying out any construction over the disputed property till the disposal of the suit. ( 3. ) DECEASED defendant Gyani Bai and her son Jitendra Kumar/non-applicant No. 2, who were initially arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, filed a joint written-statement (Annexure-A/3 ). They denied that there was any agreement-oral or in writing, as alleged by the plaintiff Bachchalal. It was further alleged that neither the deceased defendant Gyani Bai nor present non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar put their signatures on the alleged agreement dated 10-8-1993, as set-up by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1. It was also alleged that the said document was forged by the plaintiff/ non-applicant No. 1 in order to force the deceased defendant Gyani Bai and defendant non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar to sell away the suit-property to him. It was also alleged that the said document was forged by the plaintiff/ non-applicant No. 1 in order to force the deceased defendant Gyani Bai and defendant non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar to sell away the suit-property to him. The averments regarding the agreement of sale set-up by the plaintiff were denied raising several grounds of challenge, as would be clear from para-28 of the joint written-statement (Annexure-A/3) of deceased defendant Gyani Bai and defendant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar. The written-statement (Annex. A/3) was verified by deceased defendant Gyani Bai as well as defendant/non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar. ( 4. ) BOTH the above defendants, i. e. , Gyani Bai and Jitendra Kumar also filed reply to the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction, again denying specifically all the averments regarding the agreement having been executed by Gyani Bai and witnessed by non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar. Defendant/non-applicant No. 2 also filed his affidavit dated 2-11-1993 in support of the said reply, in which he specifically reiterated that he did not sign the alleged agreement dated 10-8-1993, and that the signatures thereon were a forgery. ( 5. ) THE defendant No. 3, Hansa Devi, the present petitioner, filed her separate written-statement. She also denied the alleged agreement as above, and challenged it on several grounds. It was averred by defendant No. 3 that she is bona fide purchaser of the suit-property for valuable consideration, and acquired title thereon. ( 6. ) UNDISPUTABLY, during the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1, Smt. Gyani Bai, the executant of the alleged agreement died on 3-10-1994. Thereafter, the defendant/non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar filed an application (Annexure-A/5) dated 3-2-1997, i. e. , after about two and half years of the death of his mother, Smt. Gyani Bai, under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 9 C. P. C. praying thereby that he may be permitted to file additional written statement, in modification of the earlier written statement filed by him. ( 7. ) IN the aforesaid application (Annexure-A/5), it was averred that Subhash Sahu, husband of the present petitioner Hansa Devi was a friend of defendant/non-applicant No. 2, Jitendra Kumar. ( 7. ) IN the aforesaid application (Annexure-A/5), it was averred that Subhash Sahu, husband of the present petitioner Hansa Devi was a friend of defendant/non-applicant No. 2, Jitendra Kumar. It was stated in the said application that Subhash Sahu misled non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar in entering into the transaction of sale in favour of his wife, the present petitioner-Hansa Devi, with a view to later coerce the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 Bachchalal to pay much higher price for the suit-house. It was averred that the sale-deed was thus executed by his mother Gyani Bai in favour of the present petitioner Hansa Devi. It was also stated in the application (Annexure A/5) that Subhash Sahu had taken non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar to the counsel Shri Shambhoo Awasthi and engaged him for Jitendra Kumar. Thereafter, Jitendra Kumar filed the earlier written-statement (Annexure-A/3) jointly on behalf of himself and his mother Gyani Bai. ( 8. ) IT was further stated by the non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar, in his application (Annex. A/5) that the said joint written-statement does not state the true facts. The non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar further stated in annexure-A/5 that after the death of his mother on 3-10-1994, he felt convinced that this mishap occurred on account of a false reply given by him and his mother Gyani Bai. Therefore, prayer was made for permission to file additional written-statement seeking modification of the earlier averments. In the pleas by way of additional written-statement as contained in the said application (Annexure-A/5), the defendant Jitendra Kumar admitted that there was an agreement between his mother deceased Gyani Bai for the sale of the house, which was reduced into writing on 10-8-1993 as alleged by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1. Other allegations of the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 regarding the said agreement were also admitted. It was further averred that by the sale-deed dated 8-10-1993, no title passed in favour of the purchaser, the present petitioner Hansa Devi and that the above sale-deed was executed on account of misrepresentation by Subhash Sahu, the husband of the present petitioner Hansa Devi. ( 9. ) THE Trial Court has allowed application (Annexure-A/5) by the impugned order and additional written-statement as above has been permitted to be filed by the defendant/non-applicant No. 2. ( 10. ( 9. ) THE Trial Court has allowed application (Annexure-A/5) by the impugned order and additional written-statement as above has been permitted to be filed by the defendant/non-applicant No. 2. ( 10. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 3 Hansa Devi has submitted that she is the purchaser from defendants 1 and 2 Gyani Bai and Jitendra Kumar, of the suit-property for valuable consideration by registered sale-deed dated 8-10-1993. It was contended that the defendant Jitendra Kumar and his deceased mother Smt. Gyani Bai initially by their joint written-statement (Annexure-A/3) specifically denied each and every allegation regarding the alleged agreement dated 10-8-1993 regarding the sale of suit property to the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1, as was alleged by him. They had in their earlier written statement branded the said agreement dated 10-8-1993, a fabrication and a piece of forgery by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1. It was also submitted that however in the additional written-statement (Annex. A/5), a complete gobye has been given to the above averments and totally contradictory and inconsistent pleas have been raised by defendant/ non-applicant No. 2, Jitendra Kumar. It has been submitted that this was done due to undue influence subsequently exercised by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 on Jitendra Kumar, after the death of latters mother. It has been submitted that all the allegations categorically and specifically denied in their joint written-statement and in the reply to the application for temporary injunction as well as affidavit filed by the defendant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar are now being sought to be admitted in favour of plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 by way of additional written-statement (Annexure-A/5 ). It has been submitted that as inconsistent pleas and withdrawal of admission as above would result in grave prejudice to the case of the petitioner Hansa Devi, the purchaser of the suit-property, the amendment and additional written-statement should not have been allowed. ( 11. ) THE learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2, supported the impugned order and submitted that Order 8 Rule 9 C. P. C. gives wide discretion to the Trial Court to permit additional pleadings to be filed by any of the parties. It has been submitted that in view of the circumstances narrated in application (Annexure-A/5), he was rightly permitted to plead the truth by way of additional written-statement. It was submitted that the discretion exercised by the Trial Court could not be interfered with in revision. It has been submitted that in view of the circumstances narrated in application (Annexure-A/5), he was rightly permitted to plead the truth by way of additional written-statement. It was submitted that the discretion exercised by the Trial Court could not be interfered with in revision. ( 12. ) IT may be noticed that Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. permits any party at any stage of the suit to raise, alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments can be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Thus Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Trial Court to allow amendments which are required for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The power is entirely discretionary, but has to be used judiciously on consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. ( 13. ) IN Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon ( AIR 1969 SC 1267 ), it has been observed that the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by narrow or technical limitations. It was further observed that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence of even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala-fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. ( 14. ) IN Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Anr. ( AIR 1983 SC 462 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the non- applicant No. 1, the Supreme Court laid down that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. Similarly, in another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 in Haridas Aildas Thadani and Ors. ( AIR 1983 SC 462 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the non- applicant No. 1, the Supreme Court laid down that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. Similarly, in another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 in Haridas Aildas Thadani and Ors. v. Godrej Rustom Kermani ( AIR 1983 SC 319 ), the Apex Court has ruled that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. It was further laid down therein that a revisional Court also ought not to lightly interfere with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment in absence of cogent reasons or compelling circumstances. ( 15. ) THUS, it would appear from the above that as a rule, the application for amendment should normally be dealt with liberally as rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or infraction of the rules of procedure. A party seeking amendment of the pleadings is, however, required to give cogent reasons for not taking the said plea earlier. It has also to be kept in view that amendments, which are not bona fide or are likely to cause prejudice to the other side, are not to be permitted. ( 16. ) IN view of the above, it has to be considered as to whether in the instant case, the amendment or filing of additional written-statement by application (Annexure-A/5) was bona fide and was such as was not likely to cause any prejudice to the defendant petitioner? ( 17. ) TO recapitulate, the joint written-statement (Annexure-A/3) earlier filed by the deceased defendant Gyani Bai and the non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar was of total denial of the plaintiffs allegations regarding the agreement having been entered into between him and Smt. Gyani Bai and witnessed by Jitendra Kumar. The written-agreement set up by the plaintiff was branded as fabrication and forgery and the signatures of Smt. Gyani Bai as well as non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar thereon were denied. The written-agreement set up by the plaintiff was branded as fabrication and forgery and the signatures of Smt. Gyani Bai as well as non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar thereon were denied. It may also be noticed that there was not only general denial of the plaintiffs averments as above, but several reasons as enumerated in the written-statement (Annexure-A/3) especially in Para 23 thereof were given to counter the above plea of the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 regarding the execution of the said agreement and the circumstances leading thereto. Similarly, deceased Smt. Gyani Bai and non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar also filed their reply to the application for temporary injunction supported by affidavit of non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar, denying all the facts and reiterating that the agreement to sell was a forgery and that it was a fabricated document. ( 18. ) HOWEVER, after the death of his mother, Smt. Gyani Bai on 3-10-1994, by application (Annexure-A/5) dated 3-2-1997, defendant/non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar, has chosen to file additional written-statement in which he has taken a total turn around from his earlier stand, and has admitted each and every material averment of the plaintiff/non-applicant, Bachchalal. In the said additional written-statement, it is admitted by non-applicant No. 2 that there was an agreement between the deceased Gyani Bai and the plaintiff/ non-applicant No. 1 Bachchalal, as was the case set-up by the latter. ( 19. ) THE reason for such a change and inconsistent pleas, as stated in annexure-A/5 is that after the death of his mother on 3-10-1994, Jitendra Kumar felt convinced that the death of his mother took place on account of false pleas raised by them. However, it may be noticed in the above context that the death of Gyani Bai took place about two and half years prior to filing of the application (Annex. A/5 ). There appears to be no reason as to why such an application was not filed by Jitendra Kumar immediately after the death of his mother, if the cause aforesaid impelled him to do so. From the above, it is also clear that if the defendant/non-applicant No. 2 is permitted to set-up his case by way of additional pleas in annexure-A/5, the right of the petitioner, who is the purchaser of the suit-property by registered sale-deed from deceased Gyani Bai and non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar, would be seriously prejudiced. ( 20. From the above, it is also clear that if the defendant/non-applicant No. 2 is permitted to set-up his case by way of additional pleas in annexure-A/5, the right of the petitioner, who is the purchaser of the suit-property by registered sale-deed from deceased Gyani Bai and non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar, would be seriously prejudiced. ( 20. ) IT may also be noted in the above context that since Gyani Bai is dead, now there is no possibility that she could be examined by the petitioner as witness. Thus a valuable piece of evidence has been lost so far as the petitioner/purchaser of the suit-property is concerned. Hence, in view of the death of Gyani Bai, the present petitioner would be deprived of her valuable right to bring evidence regarding the circumstances as averred by plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 about the alleged agreement dated 10-8-1993 as also regarding the subsequent purchase of the suit-property from Gyani Bai and non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar, by registered sale-deed dated 10-8-1993. Thus, it would appear from the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case that the amendment by way of additional written-statement putforth by non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar, is not bona fide and would cause serious prejudice to the case of the present petitioner. Therefore, the application for amendment and permission to file additional written-statement under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. and Order 8 Rule 9 of the C. P. C. , did not deserve to be allowed. ( 21. ) IN Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram and Co. ( AIR 1977 SC 680 ), it has been laid down that amendment introducing entirely different new case and seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from admissions made by defendants in written-statement cannot be allowed on the ground that it would prejudice the other side. Similarly, in Haji Mohammed Ishaq v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co. ( AIR 1978 SC 798 ), the Apex Court, while rejecting the prayer of amendment has observed : "the amendment of the written-statement sought was on such facts which, if permitted to be introduced by way of amendment, would have completely changed the nature of their original defence. It would have brought about an entirely new plea which was never taken up either at the time of the dealings between the parties or in the original pleadings. It would have brought about an entirely new plea which was never taken up either at the time of the dealings between the parties or in the original pleadings. " ( 22. ) IN Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and Ors. ( AIR 1998 SC 618 ), the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition laid down in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co. ( AIR 1977 SC 680 ) that if the written-statement contains an admission in favour of plaintiff, withdrawal of admission cannot be allowed, if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and would cause him irretrievable prejudice. ( 23. ) IT is, therefore, clear that though it is true that Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 9 of the C. P. C. confers wide discretion in the Court to permit amendment and to require a written-statement or additional written-statement of any of the parties. However, such powers are to be exercised ex-debito justitiae. The Court shall exercise discretionary powers vested in it only to advance the cause of justice. It cannot be exercised in a case so as to enable the defendant to change the whole nature of his case and to withdraw all admissions based on specific grounds. The defendant, without special and adequate reasons, cannot be permitted to raise the contention, which is totally inconsistent with his earlier stand. ( 24. ) IN the instant case, as noted above, the circumstances of the case do not justify the prayer of the non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar to file additional pleadings. The prayer, if allowed, would cause serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner/purchaser. The said prayer also does not appear to be based on justifiable grounds and does not appear to be bona fide. Hence, in the circumstances, the discretion exercised by the Trial Court permitting the defendant/non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar, to file additional written-statement and raise pleas which were totally inconsistent with the earlier stand taken by him and withdrawal of the pleas raised earlier, appears to be grossly erroneous and cannot be permitted to stand. ( 25. ) THIS revision is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set-aside and the application (Annexure-A/5) under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Order 8 Rule 9 C. P. C. filed by Jitendra Kumar stands dismissed.