S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenants writ petition, whose application seeking amendment in the written statement filed at the revisiona/stage has been rejected by the Revisional Court/a. DJ. , Court No. 6, Muzaffarnagar through order dated 20. 3. 2006 passed in S. C. C. Revision No. 15 of 2005. 3. Landlords respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed S. C. C. Suit No. 42 of 2002, Smt. Mahendri Devi and others v. Narendra Kumar and others, against tenant peti tioner and proforma respondents seeking eviction from the tenanted accommo dation, which is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 750/- per month. The shop was de scribed in the map annexed along with the plaint by letters A, B, C and D. Suit was decreed by J. S. C. C/civil Judge, Senior Division, Muzaffarnagar through judgment and decree, dated 24. 3. 2005. Against the said judgment and decree S. C. C. Revision No. 5 of 2005 has been filed. 4. Neither in the original written statement nor at any stage during the trial of the suit, extent of disputed property was disputed by the tenant peti tioner. However, during pendency of revision, tenant petitioner filed an appli cation under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. seeking amendment in the written state ment. Amendment sought was that a small chabutara (raised platform) in front of the shop was also in tenancy occupation of the tenant and suit was bad for partial eviction and on that ground notice was also bad. 5. Revisional Court held that in Paras No. 1 to 3 of the original written statement tenant had admitted that until the shop described by the letters A, B, C and D in the plaint map as in his tenancy occupation, hence he could not be permitted to withdraw that admission. 6. In my opinion, there is absolutely no error in the judgment of the Revisional Court. Absolutely no explanation for not taking the said stand in the original written statement or at the subsequent stage before the Trial Court was given. 7. Supreme Court in "heeralal v. Kalyan Mal 1998 (32) ALR 442=1998 RD 140 (SC)" has held that admission cannot be withdrawn through amendment. A contrary view taken in "akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa AIR 1995 SC 1498 =1996 SCFBRC 40. 7. Supreme Court in "heeralal v. Kalyan Mal 1998 (32) ALR 442=1998 RD 140 (SC)" has held that admission cannot be withdrawn through amendment. A contrary view taken in "akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa AIR 1995 SC 1498 =1996 SCFBRC 40. was held to be per incuriam as it had been taken ignoring a three Judge judgment in "modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. ; v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co 1978 (4) ALR 404 (SC ). " 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dis missed. 9. Revisional Court is directed to decide the revision very expeditiously. 10. Absolutely, no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If Court below is inclined to grant any adjournment on any ground to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs. 500/- per adjournment. 11. If tenant seeks two adjournments, then Lower Appellate Court may con sider as to whether it will be appropriate to attach condition of payment of reasonable amount along with the stay in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors. 2005 (58) ALR 650 (SC)=2005 (26) AIC 84 (SC ). Writ Petition Dismissed. .