Shishir Kumar, J.;- Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.-This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.07.1997 and 15.01.1993, by which amendment application was rejected by the trial court, but the revisional court has allowed the application filed by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed present writ petition against the said orders. 2. The facts arising out of the writ petition are that shop in dispute No. A/157 along with other properties originally belonged exclusively to Mohammad Yusuf. There was an oral gift in favour of the plaintiff-Waqf after giving possession to the donee. Subsequently, a suit was filed, which was numbered as Suit No. 51 of 1979 by the plaintiff-Waqf against Mohammad Yusuf for declaration. In the said suit Mohammad Yusuf appeared and admitted the claim of the plaintiff by filing a compromise dated 06.03.1979, on which basis the suit was decreed by judgment dated 22.03.1979. One Ishtiaq Ahmad (opposite party No.3) was tenant of one of the shops in dispute and paying Rs.40/- per month as rent. He deferred the payment of rent w.e.f. 01.06.1978, therefore, his tenancy was determined after giving notice. A suit was filed in the court of learned Munsif for recovery of possession and for payment of arrears of rent. The defendant in his statement pleaded that there was neither any contract of tenancy nor relationship of landlord and tenant and Mohammad Yusuf did not create any Waqf. It was further pleaded that Mohammad Yusuf was brother of Mohammad Yunus (defendant's father), therefore, there was no question of creating any Waqf by Mohammad Yusuf depriving the sons of Mohammad Yunus. The plaintiff has wrongly got entered its name in the municipal records. An avermentýÿ to that effect was made in para 14 of the written statement. The same is being quoted below:- “14. That the true facts are that the property in dispute and adjacent residential house and other shops were jointly constructed by father of the defendant Mohammad Yunus and his elder brother Haji Mohammad Yusuf from their joint earnings and since the date of construction the tenant's father Mohammad Yunus had been in possession of the property as co-sharer, along with Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Yusuf at the time of his death left his brother Mohammad Yunus as legal heir. In this way, Mohammad Yunus became the exclusive owner of the property in dispute and the water and electricity connections of the property in dispute and adjacent entire property had been in the name of Mohammad Yunus. All allegations contrary to it are denied.” 3. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, various issues were framed. When the suit was ripe for hearing an amendment application was filed by the defendant on 17.02.1992, in which he took a different plea and wanted to resile from his admission made in the earlier written statement, quoted above, and tried to set up his rights and title on the basis of adverse possession. An objection was filed and trial court by order dated 15.01.1993 was pleased to dismiss the application for amendment. On a revision preferred by the defendant, the revisional court vide order dated 15.07.1997 allowed the revision and permitted the amendment to be incorporated in the written statement. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent cannot resile from his admission made in the written statement. As regards title of the plaintiff Mohammad Yusuf is concerned, it stands settled in view of judgment dated 22.03.1979 in Suit No. 51 of 1979 and that decree is intact, therefore, nobody can challenge it. Further submission has been made that if an admission has been made in the written statement, which is apparent from para 14 of the written statement, nobody can resile from said statement. The defendant having admitted ownership of the petitioner cannot say by a new plea that he has accrued a right by way of adverse possession. The revisional court has committed material irregularity and has committed grave jurisdictional error in allowing the revision. Notices were issued, but no counter affidavit has been filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. From the perusal of the revisional court order, it appears that the revisional court has taken into consideration the fact that the lower court has only observed in respect of the right and title of the father of the revisionist and has not considered other proposed amendments. The revisionist-defendant has categorically pleaded in the written statement that he has never been a tenant of Waqf. The revisionist-defendant has categorically pleaded in the written statement that he has never been a tenant of Waqf. The plaintiff and he is in possession of the property in dispute by virtue of title. It may be by inheritance of his father or it may be by adverse possession. Further finding has been recorded that in any suit a party may amend his pleading about his title and rights in respect of immovable property though no contrary plea can be taken by the proposed amendment. If one of the partyýÿ pleaded the fact in respect of his title and rights of immovable property then he cannot withdraw such pleadings unless and until shows that they are mistaken by legal advise or otherwise. But, in the present case, this is not the position. The defendant-revisionist has sought amendment to clarify the title and rights of the building in dispute by raising a plea of adverse possession. The possession of the revisionist is admitted by the petitioner. It has to be seen that whether he is a tenant in the disputed building or not. After recording such finding on the basis of relevant records, it has been held that the proposed amendment is not against the pleadings and court below has not properly applied its mind to the law which is applicable regarding amendment as provided under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C.. 6. After considering all these facts, I am in full agreement with the findings of the revisional court dated 15.07.1997 that the amendment does not change the nature of suit and the admission made by the defendant. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. No order as to costs.