JUDGMENT : B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.8.2002 passed by District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (respondent no.1), whereby the said court rejected the amendment application (Paper No.19A) of the plaintiff/petitioners. 2. The case of the petitioners is that plaintiffs/petitioners moved an amendment application before the trial court seeking an amendment in the plaint so as to correct the share to ?rd instead of ¼th. The trial court rejected the application for amendment on the ground that this fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs/petitioners that what is the share of the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the amendment was explanatory in nature. This argument is not accepted. The amendment application was moved with a motive to enhance the share in the suit property. It cannot be said explanatory in nature. 4. The suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners was decreed on 11.11.2001 by the trial court. Against the said judgment, appeal was preferred by the defendants/respondents. During the pendency of appeal, this amendment application was moved by the plaintiffs/petitioners. It is well settled that no amendment can be allowed if the parties withdraw the admission made in the plaint. The amendment application was moved at appellate stage. 5. The impugned order does not suffer from any manifest error of law or perversity and therefore needs no interference. The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.