JUDGMENT Hon’ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs/petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.11.2005 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad whereby the revision has been allowed and after setting aside the order of the trial Court, directions have been given to the said Court to dispose of amendment application afresh in view of the orders passed earlier by the Addl. District Judge in Civil Revision No. 384 of 1999. 3. The defendants/respondents sought some amendment to be incorporated in the written statement and for that purpose application was moved. That application was earlier disposed of vide order dated 2.4.1999 by the trial Court and was rejected against which a revision No. 384 of 1999 which was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2003 was filed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court to be decided afresh. Thereafter the trial Court disposed of the amendment application vide order dated 28.2.2005 against which subsequent revision No. 446 of 2005 was filed in which the impugned order has been passed. The trial Court by the said order dated 28.2.2005 has again rejected the amendment application of the defendants. Since the trial Court in passing the aforesaid order has not taken into consideration the directions given by the revisional Court, the interference has been made by the impugned order against the order of trial Court and the matter has again been remanded. 4. On a perusal of the trial Court’s order dated 28.2.2005 it is apparent that the said order has not been passed in the light of the revisional Courts order and it is on this ground only that in the subsequent revision No. 384 of 1999, the District Judge has interfered and set aside that order and remanded the matter again. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier order of the revisional Court whereby the disposal of the amendment application afresh was in substance is to the effect of allowing the said application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. and it would not be possible for the trial Court to have an independent view in the matter in the said disposal of the prayer of amendment. It has been pointed out that the defendants/respondents, while filing the written statement, have specifically pleaded in para 14 of the same that the plaintiffs have constructed two rooms in the disputed land and have also extended its Sahan therein. By virtue of the proposed amendment what has been sought to be added in para 14 of the written statement is to the effect of taking away the admission of existence of two rooms and Sahan of the plaintiffs in the disputed property. No party can be permitted to take away its admission by way of amendment which is displacing the other party from its stand taken in its pleadings before the Court. 5. No doubt, it is a settled law that a party cannot displace the other party by taking a new case by way of amendment if it has already admitted the other party’s case earlier in its pleadings. Here in the present case, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of a particular piece of land claiming their possession over the same by way of having their house and Sahan therein. If the defendants have stated in para 14 of the written statement that the plaintiffs/petitioners have constructed two rooms and extended their Sahan in the said disputed land with a view to usurp their property in question, this fact about the admission of the existence of the plaintiffs possession to their room and Sahan over the land in question cannot be permitted to be taken away through some or the other amendment in the pleadings. The proposed amendment is to the effect that some words in para 14 of the written statement should be added and it is chiefly to the effect that the constructions of the plaintiffs in the disputed land is something which was erected during the pendency of the suit. The written statement was filed in 1993 and the suit was filed in 1991. Therefore, it is admitted to the defendants that by 1993 when the written statement was filed by them the construction of the plaintiffs was complete and in that light of the fact only they admitted the existence of plaintiffs construction in the disputed property. The written statement was filed in 1993 and the suit was filed in 1991. Therefore, it is admitted to the defendants that by 1993 when the written statement was filed by them the construction of the plaintiffs was complete and in that light of the fact only they admitted the existence of plaintiffs construction in the disputed property. Therefore, the amendment which is sought to be incorporated, though may not amount to complete displacement of the case taken by the plaintiffs, which was admitted.to certain extent by the defendants in para 14 of their written statement, but in the proposed amendment there is no reference as to when the plaintiffs have completed this construction during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, if the reference in the proposed amendment is there that this construction was complete on the date in the year 1993 when the written statement was filed, the amendment would not amount to displacement of the plaintiffs’ case which to certain extent was admitted in para 14 of the written statement. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the defendants/respondents add in their amendment application that the construction of the plaintiffs/petitioners was complete by 1993, there would be absolutely no illegality if such amendment is allowed. The revisional Court has directed the trial Court to dispose of the amendment application in the light of the directions given in the earlier order of the revisional Court dated 10.10.2003. The compliance in the light of the revisional Courts order shall be made by the trial Court while disposing of the amendment application, keeping in view also the aforesaid observations of this Court. 6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Order Accordingly. ———