JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendant of Title Suit No. 8/2013 of the court of learned Civil Judge, Nalbari has challenged order dated 03.08.2015 whereby the prayer of the defendant for amending written statement was rejected by the learned court. 2. The respondent, Musstt. Majima Begum, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 8/2013 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Nalbari against the present petitioner praying for a decree of specific performance. The plaintiff stated that there was an agreement for sale of the suit land to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 and accordingly on 03.02.2009 a kaccha Dalil was executed. This is because the suit land was annual patta land at that time and the defendant No. 1 agreed to execute proper registered sale deed in respect of the same after the land becomes periodic. Sale was made for a total consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- and entire amount was received by the defendant No. 1 but subsequently after the plaintiff had made construction by investing Rs. 5,00,000/- over the suit land and the land was made Periodic on 19.05.2011, the plaintiff approached the defendants for executing registered sale deed which they denied. Under such circumstances, the suit had to be instituted for a decree directing the defendant No. 1 to execute proper registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in view of receipt of Rs. 4,50,000/- etc. Alternatively, a decree for realisation of Rs. 4,50,000/- was also made. Appearing in the suit, defendants No. 1 to 4 submitted written statement wherein they admitted the agreement for sale of the land vide paragraph 16 of the written statement. Paragraph 16 of the written statement is quoted below:- "16. That, the fact remains that the plaintiff proposed to purchase the defendant's interest over 10 lechas under dag No. 404 (old) 1020 (new) and 1 (one) Bigha 1 (one) katha land of k.p. patta No. 91 (46 Eksona) and houses standing thereon of Vill. Sariahtoli at Rs. 4,50,000/- on 3-2-09 in his annual patta land. The same annual patta land was made periodic on 19-5-2011. Therefore plaintiff's title over the suit land which is now covered by periodic patta cannot be declared." 3. Sariahtoli at Rs. 4,50,000/- on 3-2-09 in his annual patta land. The same annual patta land was made periodic on 19-5-2011. Therefore plaintiff's title over the suit land which is now covered by periodic patta cannot be declared." 3. Subsequently, when the trial commenced and plaintiff examined one witness, the defendants filed an application on 02.03.2015 praying for amendment of the written statement under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the proposed amendment, the defendants wanted to incorporate a new case and wanted to plead that the suit premises was really handed over to the defendant No. 1 on hire for running a school under the name and style of 'Jonakpur Jnan Jyoti Jatiya Vidyalaya'. 4. The plaintiff submitted written objection against the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC and stated, inter alia, that the proposed amendment, if allowed, would change the nature and character of the proceeding. The learned court thereafter by order dated 03.08.2015 held that the proposed amendment is something which was within the knowledge of the defendant No. 1 on the very date of filing the initial written statement. It was not regarding existence of some documents that it could be subsequently found out and the same could not have been incorporated in the written statement in spite of due diligence. Rather, the proposed amendment would amount to withdrawal of the admission made by the defendants in paragraph 16 of the written statement. Rather, it would result in change of the nature and character of the suit. With these findings, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application. Aggrieved, the defendants have approached this court challenging the aforesaid order dated 03.08.2015 and praying that the proposed amendment be allowed. 5. I have heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Sarma for the sole opposite party. I have gone through the plaint, the written statement, application under Order 6, Rule 17 and the impugned order. Having gone through the written statement submitted by the defendants it appears that in paragraph 16, there was a clear admission about agreement for sale of the suit land. The defendants admitted to have accepted Rs. I have gone through the plaint, the written statement, application under Order 6, Rule 17 and the impugned order. Having gone through the written statement submitted by the defendants it appears that in paragraph 16, there was a clear admission about agreement for sale of the suit land. The defendants admitted to have accepted Rs. 4,50,000/- but it is the case of the defendants in written statement that since the land has subsequently been converted into periodic patta land, the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase the same. The averments made in paragraph 16 of the written statement amounts to admission as to existence of agreement for sale and also payment of consideration from the plaintiff towards consideration money. The law is settled that if some admission is made by way of pleading then the party filing such pleading shall not be entitled to retract the admission by way of amendment. This is because once an admission has been made right immediately accrued to the other side and so the party making the admission, cannot be allowed to retract the same. In the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria and ors. v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and ors. reported in (2015) 10 SCC 203 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a categorical admission made in pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. Paragraph 23 and 24 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted below for ready reference. "23. We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas (supra) and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup (supra) that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. To that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava (supra), does not reflect the correct legal position and it is overruled. 24. However, the admission can be clarified or explained by way of amendment and the basis of admission can be attacked in a substantive proceedings. In this context, we are also mindful of the averment in the application for amendment that: "11. ... Mahabir Prasad Kajaria died at age of 24 years on 7th May, 1949 when the Defendant No. 5 was only 2 years and the Defendant No. 12 was only 21 years. In this context, we are also mindful of the averment in the application for amendment that: "11. ... Mahabir Prasad Kajaria died at age of 24 years on 7th May, 1949 when the Defendant No. 5 was only 2 years and the Defendant No. 12 was only 21 years. Till the death of Mahabir and even thereafter, the Petitioners had been getting benefits from income of the joint properties. The Defendant No. 5 and his two sisters, namely, Kusum and Bina were brought up and were maintained from the income of the joint family properties. The Petitioners after the death of Mahabir, they continued to live in the joint family as members and till now members of the joint family. In the marriage of the two sisters of the Defendant No. 5 Kusum and Bina (now after marriage Smt. Kusum Tulsian and Smt. Bina Tulsian) the expenses were wholly borne out from the incomes of the joint family properties. The said facts are well known to all the family members and their relations." 6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above, the findings arrived at by the learned trial court does not appear to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error. Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the revision petition stands rejected. Interim order passed earlier stands automatically vacated. 7. No order as to costs.