ORDER Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. The petitioner has called into question, the order dated 28-8-2013 (Annexure-A) passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Koppal on I.A. No. 18 in O.S. No. 5 of 2008. Sri H. Sharanabasava, the learned Counsel undertakes to file vakalath for the respondent 7. 2. Sri Arun L. Neelopant, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that certain typographical errors, which have crept into the affidavit of one Shivappa, S/o. Hanumappa Karadi (P.W. 3), are sought to be corrected by filing I.A. No. 18. 3. Sri Arun L. Neelopant read out Headnote C of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Others AIR 1960 SC 100 which is as follows: An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. 4. Nextly he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Basant Singh v. Janki Singh and Others AIR 1967 SC 341 , wherein it is held that the admission by a party in the plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him. The learned Counsel prays for the setting aside of the impugned order and for the permission to rectify the typographical errors. 5. Sri H. Sharanabasava, the learned Counsel for the respondent 7 submits that, as P.W. 3 is cross-examined at great length, the question of the plaintiff being permitted to change the evidence of P.W. 3 would not arise. 6. My perusal of the impugned order reveals that the prayer made in I.A. No. 18 was already considered earlier based on the memo filed by the petitioner. By a considered order dated 6-8-2013, the Trial Court rejected the memo. Now an almost identical order is passed on the petitioner's I.A. No. 18. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 6-8-2013. The prayer being the same, the Trial Court cannot pass one order on the memo and the diametrically opposite order on the I.A. It is not that the memo is rejected because it was not tenable or because the liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file I.A. Such a liberty was not even sought, much less granted. 7. The prayer being the same, the Trial Court cannot pass one order on the memo and the diametrically opposite order on the I.A. It is not that the memo is rejected because it was not tenable or because the liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file I.A. Such a liberty was not even sought, much less granted. 7. That apart, I find the Trial Court's order to be balanced, as it has observed that the plaintiff and defendants can advance their arguments, after the completion of the trial, regarding the interpretation of the words, as to whether they have come in by oversight, typographical error etc. The setting aside of such an order is not warranted. This petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.