JUDGMENT Narayan Chandra Sil, J.: This revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the impugned order No. 53 dated 31.01.2001 passed by Shri S. Sarkar, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th Court, Howrah in connection with Title Suit No. 246 of 1998. 2. It appears from the record that an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the learned trial Judge who after hearing both the parties passed the order impugned rejecting the said petition for amendment of the plaint. It appears from the record that a suit being Title Suit No. 246 of 1998 was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and others from disturbing and/or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The defendant filed the written statement and thereafter the additional written statement to the suit. Now, it appears from the order impugned that earlier another amendment petition for amending the plaint was filed wherein it was claimed by the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property and that was fortified subsequently in course of the evidence of the plaintiff as P.W.1 that the plaintiff company has been paying municipal tax both as owner and occupier of the suit property. It further appears from the said order that after all this, the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been filed to incorporate the fact that the plaintiff is not the owner but the tenant under the Wakf estate which is under the management of the Wakf Board, West Bengal. That being the position the learned trial court rejected the application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment is a complete departure from the very nature and character of the suit. 3. Mr. S. P. Roychoudhury, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff has drawn my attention to paragraph 2 of the plaint wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff initially took settlement of the land from the owner in terms of lease duly registered and thereafter raised structures thereon. It is also stated there that the name of the plaintiff was recorded as Dakhalkar. It is also stated there that the name of the plaintiff was recorded as Dakhalkar. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it is stated that the defendants surreptiously managed to have their names mutated in the records of the municipality and got their names recorded therein. But although Mr. Roychoudhury has referred to paragraphs 2 and 4 of the plaint it appears from the paragraph 1 and paragraph 8 of the plaint that the plaintiff projected itself as the owner of the suit-property. Furthermore in the prayer portion of the suit it has been clearly stated that the plaintiff prays for: "A decree for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit having right, title and interest therein." 4. Mr. Roychoudhury has then taken me through the amendment petition in question filed before the trial court and it appears therefrom that due to inadvertence and for drafting the plaint hurriedly there occurred some omissions. In paragraph 2 of the said amendment application it is stated as below: "That the plaintiff has also in the plaint claimed ownership of the property and mutation of the plaintiffs name as such which now appears is based on erroneous appreciation of law. In fact under Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 the Wakf estate does not vest in this state and as such the Wakf estate continues to remain the owner under whom the plaintiff is a tenant of land on rent." 5. Mr. Roychoudhury thus submits before me that by way of amendment only the clarification of the actual claim has been sought for. Mr. Roychoudhury has referred to a number of case laws which I shall discuss at the appropriate point of time. 6. But it appears from the schedule of amendment to the said application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C. P. Code that the word "owner" from different places of the plaint has sought to be omitted and the words "as tenant of land under the Wakf estate now under the management of the Wakf Board" are sought to be incorporated. 7. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the O.P./defendant submits before me that there is a clear admission of the plaintiff in the original plaint that the plaintiff was the lessee and one Muslim lady was the owner of the suit property. Mr. 7. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the O.P./defendant submits before me that there is a clear admission of the plaintiff in the original plaint that the plaintiff was the lessee and one Muslim lady was the owner of the suit property. Mr. Mukherjee has also drawn my attention to the order passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. K. Samanta in disposing the revisional application relating to the first amendment application made by the plaintiff. Thus, it appears from the said order passed by His Lordship on 24.11.2000 in connection with C.O. No. 2714 of 2000 that in the said amendment application the plaintiff company projected itself as the owner of the suit property and therefore to have raised construction thereon and on that basis His Lordship was pleased to allow the revisional application whereby the first amendment application on the plaint was allowed. Mr. Mukherjee has also drawn my attention to the second amendment petition and from paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said petition tries to impress upon me that the same is absolutely at variance with the original plaint inasmuch as the claim of ownership will be taken away if the second amendment petition is allowed. Mr. Mukherjee has also drawn my attention to the provision of section 116 of the Evidence Act and contends that a tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant shall not be permitted to deny the title of the landlord. Mr. Mukherjee then argues that even if the Wakf Board is the owner, the plaintiff company cannot challenge the title of the O. Ps. It is also contended by him that there is absolutely no explanation as to how the Wakf Board became a necessary party. Mr. Mukherjee has also referred to a number of case laws which I shall discuss at the appropriate point of time. 8. In reply Mr. Roychoudhury has submitted before me that the learned trial court has overlooked the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner and thus it is observed in the order impugned that although by way of amendment the plaintiff claimed the ownership of the suit property, there is no prayer as regards the declaration of tenancy. But that is not the ground only that the learned trial court rejected the prayer fur amendment of the plaint. 9. Mr. But that is not the ground only that the learned trial court rejected the prayer fur amendment of the plaint. 9. Mr. Roychoudhury has referred to the ratio decided in the case of P. N. Srivastava vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay & Anr., AIR 1983 SC 462 . In the said case the plaintiff described himself in the plaint as a son of the uterine brother of one person. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint inter alia seeking deletion of the word "Uterine" from the plaint. The trial court granted the application for amendment. The High Court in revision however, set aside the order granting amendment, observing that the deletion of the word "Uterine" has some significance and may work in favour of either side to a very great extent. In such circumstances, it was held that the learned trial Judge granting application for amendment was satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, amendment of the pleading was necessary, and, therefore, the High Court ought not to have interfered in its revisional jurisdiction. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away and, therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Jai Ram Monohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, 1969 (1) SCC 869 , that a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or 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 was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder he had caused to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligence or careless may have been the first omission and however left the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. It was also held that there is no rule that unless in an application for amendment of the plaint, it is expressly averred that the error, omission or misdescription is due to a bona fide mistake, the court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. It was also held that there is no rule that unless in an application for amendment of the plaint, it is expressly averred that the error, omission or misdescription is due to a bona fide mistake, the court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. It was held in the case of B. K. Narayana Pillai vs. P. Pillai & Anr., 2000 (1) SCC 712 , that amendment of pleadings should be permitted where it would result in solution of real controversy between parties, without altering original cause of action. It was also held in that case that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right under all circumstances, but court ought not to adopt hyper-technical approach while deciding such prayers and court's approach should be liberal particularly where any prejudice suffered by the other side can be compensated by costs. It was held in the case of Akshaya Restaurant vs. P. Anjanappa & Anr., 1995 (Supp.) 2 SCC 303, that even admission in the pleadings can be explained and inconsistent pleas can be taken in amendment petition. It was also held that even after taking a definite stand by the appellant in the written statement that the respondent had entered into an agreement of sale, the same sought to be modified by stating that respondents had entered into an agreement for development of the land for mutual benefit of the party. It was held in the case of Shyamal Mitra Mustafi vs. J. G. Saggi, 93 C.W.N. 631, that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts and while the first part of the said Rule vests the Court with discretion to allow amendment, the latter part makes it obligatory on the court to do so. 10. Now, I shall discuss the case laws referred to by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Senior Counsel for the O.P. Thus, it was held in the case of Shrimoni Gurdwara Committee vs. Jaswant Singh, 1996 (11) SCC 690 , that it is settled law that the defendant can raise mutually inconsistent pleadings in the written statement but it is for the court to consider whether the case can be properly considered in deciding the issue. In the said case the plea in the written statement was mutually destructive. In the said case the plea in the written statement was mutually destructive. In the first written statement the defendants denied the title of one Isher Singh and, therefore, they cannot set up a title in him and plead gift made by one Isher Singh in favour of the petitioner-Committee. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that under such circumstances the High Court had rightly refused to accept the contention of the defendants for amendment of written statement. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed in that case that there was no explanation given as to why the defendants came forward with the plea at the belated stage after the parties had adduced the evidence and the matter was to be argued. 11. In the case of Radhika Devi vs. Bajrangi Singh & Ors., 1996 S. A. R. (Civil) 639, the appellant instituted a Partition Suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Aurangabad for partition of certain properties. Respondent Nos. 16 to 20 filed written statement on June 15, 1988 wherein they pleaded that Ramdeo Sing had executed and registered a gift deed in their favour on July 28, 1978 bequeathing the properties covered thereunder. Pending the suit, the appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. on November 11, 1992 seeking declaration that the deed of gift was obtained by the respondent illegally and fraudulently and, therefore, it was ineffective and does not bind the appellant. Though the trial court by order dated November 24, 1992 allowed the petition for amendment of the plaint, the High Court in revision by order dated August 13, 1993 allowed the petition and set aside the order directing amendment of the plaint. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court rightly turned down the amendment application because after such a long time by this amendment sought for the appellant wanted to take away the right which accrued to the defendant. It was also held that the registered deed of gift of 1978 in favour of the defendant was a notice to everyone and even after filing W. S. the plaintiff remained silent for four years and so the amendment cannot be allowed due to lapse of time. It was also held that the registered deed of gift of 1978 in favour of the defendant was a notice to everyone and even after filing W. S. the plaintiff remained silent for four years and so the amendment cannot be allowed due to lapse of time. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that no doubt the amendment of the plaint is normally granted but in that given case by amendment sought for accrued rights of the defendants had taken away and so the High Court rightly refused to allow such amendment. It was held in the case of Heeralal vs. Kalyan Mal & Ors., 1998 S. A. R. (Civil) 41, that while granting such amendments to written statements no inconsistent or alternative plea can be allowed which would displace the plaintiffs case and cause him irretrievable prejudice. In the said case the ratio decided in the case of Akshaya Restaurant (supra) (herein in the instant case it is referred to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner) was referred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Heeralal (supra) has distinguished the ratio decided in the case of Akshaya Restaurant (supra) and observed that in the case of Heeralal the defendant did not seek to go behind his admission that there was an agreement on January 25, 1991 between the parties but the nature of agreement was sought to be explained by him by amending written statement by submitting that it was not agreement of sale as such but it was an agreement for development of land and so the facts in the case of Heeralal were entirely different and consequently the said decision in the case of Akshaya Restaurant was not applicable in the case of Heeralal. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as below: "Even that apart the said decision of two learned Judges of this Court runs counter to a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges of this court in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Ladha Ram & Co., (1977) 1 SCR 728: AIR 1977 SC 680 . In that case Ray, C. J., speaking for the Bench had to consider the question whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. In that case Ray, C. J., speaking for the Bench had to consider the question whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed. If such amendments are allowed in the written statement plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admissions from the defendants. ................................. This decision of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court is a clear authority for the proposition that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, by amendment such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. Unfortunately the aforesaid decision of three member Bench of this Court was not brought to the notice of the Bench of two learned Judges that decided the case in Akshaya Restaurant (supra). In the latter case it was observed by the Bench of two learned Judges that it was settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. The aforesaid observation in the decision in Akshaya Restaurant, 1995 AIR SCW 2277 (supra) proceed on an assumption that it was the settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. However, the aforesaid decision of the three member Bench of this Court in Modi Spinning, AIR 1977 SC 680 (supra) is to the effect that while granting such amendments to written statement on inconsistent or alternative plea can be allowed which would displace the plaintiffs case and cause him irretrievable prejudice. Consequently it must be held that when the amendment sought in the written statement was of such a nature as to displace the plaintiffs case it could not be allowed as ruled by a three-member Bench of this court. Consequently it must be held that when the amendment sought in the written statement was of such a nature as to displace the plaintiffs case it could not be allowed as ruled by a three-member Bench of this court. This aspect was unfortunately not considered by latter Bench of two learned Judges and to the extent to which the latter decision took a contrary view qua such admission in written statement, it must be held that it was per incuriam being rendered without being given an opportunity to consider the binding decision of a three-member Bench of this court taking a diametrically opposite view." 12. In the case a Heeralal (supra) the ratio decided in the case of P. N. Srivastava (supra) (herein in the instant case it is referred to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner) was referred to and it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as regards that judgment that even in that case put forward by the plaintiff did not get changed as the plaintiff wanted to submit that the defendant was his brother. Whether he was uterine brother or real brother was a question of decree and dependent on the nature of the evidence that might be led before the court and, therefore, the deletion of the word "uterine" was not found to be displacing the earlier case of the plaintiff. Thus, in the case of Heeralal the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on the decision in the case of P. N. Srivastava. 13. Mr. Mukherjee then argues before me that tenancy is a creation of contract and in this connection he has referred to the ratio decided in the case of M/s. Parekh Brothers vs. Kartick Chandra Saha & Ors., AIR 1968 Cal. 532 . In the said case court found variations between the pleadings and proof and it was held that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the admission of the defendant only if liability is admitted. In the said case contract of tenancy was alleged to be made by three landlords and the defendant denied existence of three landlords but accepted only one of them and so the court held that such person cannot succeed on admission of the defendant. 14. In the said case contract of tenancy was alleged to be made by three landlords and the defendant denied existence of three landlords but accepted only one of them and so the court held that such person cannot succeed on admission of the defendant. 14. Now, after having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and the position of law established by different judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court and our High Court it is clear that a right accrued on a party by the admission of his adversaries cannot be taken away after long lapse of time by way of amendment of the pleadings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Heeralal (supra) did not accept the ratio decided in the case of Akshaya Restaurant (supra) in view of the ratio decided by the larger Bench in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Com. Ltd. (supra). Thus, is has led me to explore whether after the admission by way of claim for declaration of the title of the plaintiff, any accrued right of the defendant/O.P. is going to be shuttered if the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. There is no doubt that in the plaint filed before the trial court in the year 1998 the plaintiff company projected itself to be the owner of the suit premises but at the, same time it is stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint that "the plaintiff initially took settlement of the land from the owner thereof in terms of lease duly registered and thereafter raised structures thereon. The lease were dt. 02-7-1949, 26-10-1949, 21-9-1953 & lastly on 21-9-1960. The plaintiff was also recorded in the record-of-rights as "Dakhalkar." It is also specifically stated in paragraph 2 of the original plaint that "in the said record the name of the owner was recorded as Musammat Urman Fulsam Bibi, the owner of the land of the plaintiff." And in such background the plaintiff prayed for declaration of ownership in respect of the property and permanent injunction against the defendant and their men and agents. 15. 15. Now in the application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed before the trial court the plaintiff stated that due to some inadvertence some omissions were made in the plaint for which the amendment is required. It is further stated in paragraph 2 of the said amendment petition that the claim of ownership of the plaintiff on the basis of the mutation etc. was made in the original plaint on some erroneous appreciation of law. The said amendment petition was filed on 15.1.2001. 16. Thus, it is clear that by way of clarification the petitioner/plaintiff intends to bring the amendment of the plaint. In the instant case the right and interest of the plaintiff-company are based on some lease deeds of different years as staged in paragraph 2 of the original plaint and that is the very substratum of the case of the plaintiff. Now, by way of amendment there appears no departure of the original position as regards the right and interest of the plaintiff company accrued on the basis of those different lease documents. The plaintiff is perspicuous in its amendment petition as to how the impression of ownership in respect of the suit property erroneously crept in the plaint and to be precise in my considered view by way of amendment the plaintiff/petitioner wants to delete the word "ownership" simpliciter and thereafter to bring the Wakf Board into the arena as a party which is claimed to have come to the notice of the plaintiff/company subsequently. 17. It is again a pointer to note that in the instant case the defendant is not praying for amendment of the written statement and so as soon as the plaint will be amended the defendant will be at liberty to file their additional written statement to place their case in terms of such amendment of the plaint. In my considered view the amendment as sought for in the instant case is necessary for the proper determination of the suit before the learned lower court. In my considered view the amendment as sought for in the instant case is necessary for the proper determination of the suit before the learned lower court. I do not find also anything that by such claim of the plaintiff, and not admission in strict sense of the term, any right has been accrued on the defendants and as such in my considered view this is a fit case where the cause of the defendant may be met by payment of costs from the coffer of the plaintiff company. 18. Thus, in view of what has been discussed in the foregoing lines the present revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is hereby set aside. The application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is hereby allowed with costs of Rs. 200 G. M. to be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff to the O.P./defendant within a period of one month from this date. 19. The learned trial court is directed to amend the plaint and register accordingly and thereafter to give the opportunity to the defendants to file additional written statements within a period to be specified by the learned trial Judge and thereafter to proceed with the suit for disposal as expeditiously as possible. 20. The stay order passed by this court is hereby vacated and thus the petition being CAN 4684 of 2001 is disposed of. 21. A copy of this order be sent down to the learned lower court forthwith. Revisional application allowed.