JUDGMENT : Sahidullah Munshi, J. 1. Affidavit of Service filed by Mr. Roy be taken on record. 2. No one appears for the opposite parties despite service even at the second call. 3. This revisional application is directed against order No.33 dated 6th November, 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Lalbagh, in other Title Suit No.73 of 1994. The petitioner is an added defendant in the suit. The opposite party No., 1, Dhananjoy Ghosh, filed a suit praying for eviction of opposite party No.2, who is defendant No.1 in the suit. In the said eviction suit plaintiff has made out a case that the suit property originally belonged to Kiran Bala Pal, and she subsequently, transferred the same by way of a registered deed dated 2nd August, 1972 in favour of Sachi Rani Pal. Sachi Rani Pal subsequently, by registered deed dated 3rd December, 1973, transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff/opposite party No.1 inducted the opposite party No.2 as his tenant. In spite of revoking the tenancy opposite party No.2 did not vacate the suit property and, therefore, the suit was filed. 4. While contesting the said suit the opposite party No.2 being the defendant No.1 filed his written statement and denied all allegations made against him in the plaint. The opposite party No.2, Soleman Sha, took a specific defence that he is the tenant under Kiran Bala Pal and she is his landlord. Opposite party No.2 did not pay rent as there is dispute as regards ownership over the property. The written statement has been annexed to the revisional application which was filed on 17th January, 1991. In paragraph 7 of the said written statement the defendant/opposite party No.2 has admitted that he paid rent for the suit premises to the petitioner, Hari Charan Pal who is the son of Kiran Bala Pal and further admitted that the defendant No.1 paid rent to Kiran Bala Pal up to March, 1990. At a much later stage of the suit the defendant No.1 filed an application on 6th November, 2009 praying for an order allowing him to substitute his earlier written statement by a new one and in order to do so he blamed his learned advocate that without his instruction the written statement was drawn and filed before the Court. Such attempt was seriously opposed by the petitioner. Such attempt was seriously opposed by the petitioner. The learned Court below, by the order impugned, allowed the said application holding that the defendant would suffer prejudice if such application is not allowed by allowing him to substitute his written statement. 5. Challenging the said order, Mr. Roy in this revisional application has submitted that while the original written statement was submitted in 1991, subsequent stand was taken by the defendant No.1 to withdraw his earlier written statement only in the year 2009. Although, the suit proceeded before the learned Court below but no steps were taken by the said defendant. Such attempt to withdraw the earlier written statement was made only after the petitioner was added as a defendant in the suit. It is his submission that such an attempt has been taken by the defendant to delay the hearing of the suit. After going through the plaint, original written statement and the application for withdrawal of the said written statement by filing a separate one, this Court finds that the same does not make out any case for substituting his earlier written statement. The said application ought not to have been allowed by the learned Court below for the reasons, firstly, for not making the application within a reasonable period of time. In this case, the original written statement was filed in the year 1991 and after a period of 18 years the defendant No.1 filed an application for withdrawing the earlier written statement by filing a separate one, secondly, no plausible explanation has been offered by the defendant No.1 for filing such a belated application and if no instruction was given to the learned advocate to conduct the case no explanation is forthcoming from the defendant No.1 as to what steps he had taken to revoke the power given to that learned advocate to file the written statement before the Court and the Court is oblivious of these questions. Thirdly, nothing has been considered by the learned Court below as to whether an admission which has been made can be withdrawn by a party at a subsequent stage of the suit. 6. In the above context whether the amendment application as allowed by the learned Court below is justified or not reference may be made to a Single Bench decision of this Hon’ble court in the case of Narendra Nath Sen – Vs. 6. In the above context whether the amendment application as allowed by the learned Court below is justified or not reference may be made to a Single Bench decision of this Hon’ble court in the case of Narendra Nath Sen – Vs. – Broadway Centre reported in AIR 2000 Cal 14. Question arose before the Court that in the case of Akshaya Restaurant – Vs. – P. Anjanappa reported in AIR 1995 SC 1498 , it was contended on behalf of the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the respondents having made an admission was not entitled to wriggle out from that admission and that admission is a material piece of evidence which would be in favour of the appellant and binds the respondents when the admission is sought to be withdrawn by amendment and some additional facts are sought to be introduced, it would be inconsistent and such an amendment should not be permitted. However, in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court found no force in the contention of the appellant. The Hon’ble Apex Court held “it was settled law even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas can be taken in the pleadings.” In a later Supreme Court decision in the case of Heeralal – Vs. – Kalyan Mal reported in AIR 1998 SC 618 it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the view taken by the Supreme Court in Akshaya Restaurant (supra) to be per incuriam inasmuch as the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court runs counter to a decision of 3-Judges’ Bench in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. – Vs. – Ladha Ram & Co. reported in AIR 1977 SC 680 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had to consider the question whether the defendant could be allowed to amend the written statement by having an inconsistent plea and compared to an earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff and it was held by the said earlier 3-Judges’ Bench that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admission made in the written statement could not be allowed because if such amendments were allowed the plaintiff would be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunities of extracting the admissions from the defendants. In the case of Heeralal (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held in paragraph 9 of the judgment that the said decision of 3-Judges’ Bench was a clear authority for the proposition that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff by amendment such admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. If such withdrawal amounts to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and causes irretrievable prejudice. Taking note of the said decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court our High Court in the said reported decision of Narendra Nath Sen (supra) has held that in a case like this if it seeks to introduce an inconsistent plea as compared to earlier plea which contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff and if such amendment be allowed the defendant would be irreparably prejudiced by denying the opportunities of extracting the admission. The Hon’ble Court held that no jurisdictional error was committed by the learned Court below in refusing to allow the proposed amendment. I do not find any reason not to follow the said judgment of our Hon’ble Court and, accordingly, this Court holds that the learned Court below has committed gross error in allowing the application filed by the defendant No.1 on 6th November, 2009 for substituting his written statement filed on 17th January, 1991. 7. The order impugned is, accordingly, set aside. 8. Revisional application succeeds. 9. There will be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the respective parties upon compliance of all usual formalities.