Judgment : This revision is directed against the order dated 18.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.410 of 2010 in O.S.No.648 of 2008 by the II Additional senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the Original Suit. He filed written statement on 26.03.2009 and subsequently, he filed additional written statement on 28.08.2009. The trial commenced on 12.11.2009. P.W.1 was partly cross examined on 24.02.2010 and 08.03.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.140 of 2010 seeking permission to amend the additional written statement, inter alia, contending that there is a typographical mistake in mentioning the date as 25.06.2009 instead of 26.06.2009. A further amendment was sought that in the place of the the words “in respect sale transaction”, it should be “in respect of completion of sale transaction”. His main contention is that the said typographical mistake came to his notice while going through the contents of the chief affidavit filed by P.W.1 and that there is no willful default or negligence on his part and that the mistakes will not change the cause of action and will not cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The lower Court dismissed the said I.A. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is only a typographical mistake and the lower Court ought to have allowed the application. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a party cannot be allowed to amend his pleadings after commencement of the trial, particularly after cross examination of a witness. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable. It is not in dispute that the respondent filed suit seeking cancellation of registered sale deed executed by the defendant dated 26.06.2008 marked as Ex.A1 mainly on the ground that it is a nominal and formal deed and that no sale consideration was paid. It is also his contention that the said sale deed was snatched away in a Hotel at Nellore on 25.06.2008 itself i.e., one day prior to the registration of the sale deed. After filing the additional written statement, an additional issue was framed as under. It is also his contention that the said sale deed was snatched away in a Hotel at Nellore on 25.06.2008 itself i.e., one day prior to the registration of the sale deed. After filing the additional written statement, an additional issue was framed as under. “Whether the memorandum of agreement dated 26.06.2008 was got fabricated and brought up on the stamp stolen by the plaintiff from the defendant on 25.06.2008 and it is a false and fabricated one?” Admittedly, Order VI Rule 17 CPC prohibits amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial unless the Court is satisfied that the amendment is absolutely necessary. It has to be seen that the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and cross examined at length. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that P.W.1 made certain admissions in the cross examination. It is clear that no amendment can be allowed to deny or plead contra to the admissions made at a subsequent stage. No party should be allowed to deprive the benefits accrued to it in the cross examination of other side witness by allowing any amendment of the pleading otherwise the very purpose of Order VI Rule 17 CPC would be defeated. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that it is only a typographical mistake or a minor mistake and the proposed amendment will not cause prejudice to the plaintiff. In view of the same, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.