Judgment :- 1. Heard the submissions made on either side. 2. This is a very unfortunate case where the plaintiffs who laid the suit way back in the year 2000 and 2003 respectively were not in a position to see the termination of trial till today. The suits were filed for recovery of money from the defendant. The defendant filed written statements in the respective suits admitting unambiguously, having given particulars of the repayment made by him, that only a sum of Rs.8,64,340/- remained due and payable to the plaintiffs. The defendant filed an application invoking the provision under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. seeking permission to file an additional written statement. An additional written statement was sought to be filed to change the original stand as to the quantum of liability taken by the defendant in the written statement. In other words, the defendant admitted in the original written statement filed by him that a sum of Rs.8,64,340/- was due and payable. But by way of an additional written statement, the defendant preferred to restate the quantum of liability. 3. The trial court chose to dismiss both the applications filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. The defendant preferred two Civil revision petitions before this Court. While dismissing the Civil revision petitions filed by the defendant, this Court made an observation that the defendant having filed original written statement admitting his liability to the tune of Rs.8,64,340/- cannot be permitted to file an additional written statement to the effect that only a sum of Rs.6,28,505/- is due and payable. Thereafter, the present petitions were filed by the defendants very intelligently invoking the provision under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the written statement to the effect that only a sum of Rs.6,28,505/- was due and payable to the plaintiff and not a sum of Rs.8,64,340/- which was originally pleaded in the written statement. 4. The trial court without adverting to the observation made by this court in the correct perspective allowed the defendant to amend the written statement, citing a decision of the Honble Supreme Court that a liberal approach will have to be given as regards the amendment of the written statement sought for by the defendant. 4. The trial court without adverting to the observation made by this court in the correct perspective allowed the defendant to amend the written statement, citing a decision of the Honble Supreme Court that a liberal approach will have to be given as regards the amendment of the written statement sought for by the defendant. The plaintiffs are now forced to file these revision petitions before this court on account of the amendment of the written statement allowed by the trial court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that admission made by the defendant in the written statement which accrued to the benefit of the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to be taken away by way of an amendment sought for by the defendant. He would also submit that the trial court is not in a position to progress the trial as directed by this court to dispose of the suits within a time frame fixed, as the defendant is bent upon dragging on the proceedings. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendant would submit that this court while dismissing the earlier Civil revision petitions made an observation that the defendant can very well lead evidence to establish that he is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.6,28,505/- to the plaintiff. Unless the pleading submitted by the defendant is amended, evidence to that effect cannot be let in by the defendant. He would also submit that the scope of the Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. which facilitates the party to file an additional pleading is totally different from the provision under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. permitting a party to seek for amendment of the pleading. The highest Court of this country has laid down the law that liberal approach will have to be given in the matter of permitting a party to amend the written statement. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, if such amendment is permitted. It is his further submission that the defendant is only asserting his right and he does not prolong the litigation as contended by the other side. 7. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, if such amendment is permitted. It is his further submission that the defendant is only asserting his right and he does not prolong the litigation as contended by the other side. 7. At the outset, the court wants to make an observation that the defendant who could not achieve his object of changing his original stand with respect to his total liability invoking the provision under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. has bent upon achieving surreptitiously his design by filing a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to amend the quantum of liability admitted by him in the original written statement. 8. In the additional written statement, the defendant wanted to introduce virtually an amendment to the original written statement with respect to the liability he admitted therein. He wanted to file an additional written statement to the effect that he was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.6,28,505/- and not a sum of Rs.8,64,340/- which was originally admitted in the written statement filed by him. The amendment sought to be introduced by way of an additional written statement is now found a place in the amended written statement sought to be filed invoking Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. If at all the content of additional written statement sought to be introduced is totally different from the content of amendment of the written statement sought to be introduced, of course, the court will have to seriously consider the plea of the defendant to amend the written statement. But here in this case, the amendment sought to be introduced through additional written statement is verbatim sought to be introduced by way of amendment of the written statement. Though the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. is different, a party cannot be permitted to achieve what he could not achieve earlier with respect to the very same plea. 9. This court has already observed in the earlier Civil revision petition preferred by the defendant aggrieved by the rejection of his plea for receiving an additional written statement that the defendant cannot be permitted to file an additional written statement to change his original stand with respect to the liability he had already admitted. 9. This court has already observed in the earlier Civil revision petition preferred by the defendant aggrieved by the rejection of his plea for receiving an additional written statement that the defendant cannot be permitted to file an additional written statement to change his original stand with respect to the liability he had already admitted. Such being the case, the trial court should have rejected the plea for amendment of the written statement sought to be introduced by the defendant invoking Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. 10. It is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs if such an amendment is allowed to be made by the defendant. There is a clear admission by the defendant in the written statement originally filed by him to the effect that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,64,340/-. However, such admission is now completely erased by permitting the defendant to introduce an amendment to the written statement. 11. In the considered opinion of this court a right which has already accrued to the plaintiffs on account of the admission categorically made by the defendant in the written statement would be completely lost if the plea of the defendant is admitted. Therefore, I find that great hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if such an amendment is permitted to be introduced. 12. The Honble Supreme Court in P.A.Jayalakshmi Vs H.Saradha and others in 2009(4) C.T.C. 201 has held as follows: "Order 6, Rule 17 speaks of amendment of pleadings whereas Order 8, Rule 9 provides for subsequent pleadings by a defendant. The distinction between the two provisions is evident. Whereas by reason of the former unless a contrary intention is expressed by the Court, any amendment carried out in the pleadings shall relate back to the date of filing original thereof, subsequent pleadings stand on different footings." In the instant case, a plea sought to be introduced by way of an additional written statement is verbatim sought to be pleaded through the amendment of written statement. Though scope of Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. are totally different, the amendment sought to be introduced by way of amendment petition as well as by filing an additional written statement is found to be one and the same. Though scope of Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. are totally different, the amendment sought to be introduced by way of amendment petition as well as by filing an additional written statement is found to be one and the same. Therefore, the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court would have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant would also cite a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami & others Vs Kiran Appaso Swami & others in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 2545 wherein it has been held as follows: "It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court as well as those by High Courts that the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bonafide one. In this connection, the observation of the Privy Council in the case of Ma Shwe Mya V. Maung Mo Hnaung (A.I.R. 1922 P.C.249) may be taken note of. The Privy Council observed: "All rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change by means of amendment, the subject matter of the suit." The Honble Supreme Court has held that while allowing the prayer for amendment of plea, the court will have to see whether serious injustice would be caused to the other side. The court also will have to find whether the prayer for amendment was made bonafide. 14. With due respect, I may observe that the aforesaid ratio in fact goes to support the case of the plaintiffs. Here is a case where, the court finds that serious injustice would be caused to the plaintiffs if the admission already made by the defendant is permitted to be erased by way of an amendment sought to be introduced. 14. With due respect, I may observe that the aforesaid ratio in fact goes to support the case of the plaintiffs. Here is a case where, the court finds that serious injustice would be caused to the plaintiffs if the admission already made by the defendant is permitted to be erased by way of an amendment sought to be introduced. Further, there is no bonafides in the application filed by the defendant seeking amendment of the written statement in as much as the earlier application was filed by him to introduce the very same amendment by way of an additional written statement. Therefore the petition filed seeking to amend the written statement lacks bonafides. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendant submitted yet another decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs K.K. Modi and others (2006)3 M.L.J. 70 (S.C.) wherein it has been held as follows: "20. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case." The Apex Court has cautioned not to go into the veracity of the amendment sought to be introduced while entertaining an application seeking amendment. With due respect to the learned counsel for the respondent, I may observe that this court is not concerned with the verocity of the amendment sought to be introduced viz., the lessor liability sought to be introduced by the defendant. But this court is concerned with the implication of the abridged liability sought to be introduced by way of an amendment, erasing the larger liability admitted in the original written statement. Of course the trial court has gone into the merit of the amendment. I find that it is premature to make comment as to the merit of the amendment sought for by the defendant. Of course the trial court has gone into the merit of the amendment. I find that it is premature to make comment as to the merit of the amendment sought for by the defendant. But the defendant cannot be permitted to introduce an amendment of a plea which stood rejected by this court earlier, more especially when there is lack of bonafides in filing a petition seeking amendment, on the part of the defendant. 16. It is also brought to the notice of this court that the trial court was directed to dispose of the main suits within three months as per the order passed earlier by this court in the month of January 2009. The trial court has completely erred in entertaining the petitions filed by the defendant seeking to introduce an amendment with a view to erase the admission categorically made in the original written statement. Therefore the order passed by the trial court is liable to be revised. 17. In view of the above, setting aside the orders passed by the trial court dated 24.10.2008 in I.A.No.31 of 2008 in O.S.No.232 of 2004 and I.A.No.258 of 2008 in O.S.No.200 of 2004, the Civil revision petitions stand allowed. There is no order as to cost. Connected miscellaneous petition are closed.