JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. – Sri Anuragh Pathak filed Vakalatnama on behalf of second respondent. 2. The defendant-applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 14 October 2015, passed by the Revisional Court/Additional District Judge (Court no.4), Mahrajganj arising from an order dated 9 March 2015, passed in Original Suit No. 329 of 2010 rejecting the application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C to amend the written statement. 3. The respondent instituted a suit for injunction against the applicant, in the written statement, a categorical stand was taken that the suit property was transferred to second respondent by way of registered sale deed, however, it was alleged that the rent deed is a manufactured and forged document, consequently, the applicant has already approached the Magistrate in a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, by the amendment, the applicant sought to retract the admission made in the written statement by stating that the sale deed is a forged document but rent agreement is valid document and the application made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was on the pressure of third party. 4. The courts below noted in the impugned order that the amendment of the written statement cannot be allowed for the reason that it amounts to retraction of admission already made, the amendment that is being sought does not supplement the pleadings but an entirely different case has been set up upon withdrawing the admission. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error. 6. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.