ORDER 1. Petitioners/plaintiffs taking exception to the order passed by the trial Court on 25.6.2015 has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of writ petition are to the effect that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, injunction and possession. It is pleaded that the suit property described in para 2 of the plaint is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants. Describing genealogy of the family, it is pleaded that the suit property was originally of the ownership and possession of Bhairo Lal and after his death devolved upon his legal heirs, sons namely Bhanwar Lal, Kamar Lal, Narayan Singh, and Man Singh and daughter namely Ramkunwar Bai with equal shares. Thereafter, the suit property was mutated in equal proportion in revenue record. Defendant No.1 Man Singh is the father of the plaintiff. Again in paras 5 and 6 the plaintiffs have pleaded that the suit property is the ancestral property. 3. In the written statement, defendants instead of denying the averments made in the plaint on merits have simply made evasive denial. In para 2, it is admitted that suit property is the ancestral property. At a later stage, respondents/defendants filed a detailed lengthy application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC for amendment in written statement. In the body of the application respondents/defendants sought to withdraw admission that the suit property is the ancestral property and proposed to plead that the suit property is the self acquired property of Man Singh defendant No.1 with further detailed averments of which there is no reference in the written statement. 4. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a reply thereto and opposed the application. 5. The trial Court by the impugned order has allowed the amendment treating it to be a mere elaboration of the averments made in the written statement. 6. Petitioners/plaintiffs challenges the aforesaid order on the grounds that even though the power under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC conferred on the trial Court is primarily discretionary in nature, however, the discretion is required to be exercised judiciously with due advertence to the relevant factual matrix of a given case as well as the proviso appended to Order 6 rule 17 CPC. It is submitted that the law as regards withdrawal of admission by way of amendment is by now well settled. The Supreme Court has unambiguously ruled that once admission is made in pleadings, the same cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of amendment. In the case of Heera Lal v. Kayalan Mal and others [ AIR 1998 SC 618 paras 9,10 & 12 and AIR 1970 SC 680]. 7. Learned counsel further contends that the proposed amendment in fact and in effect tantamounts to substitution of the new written statement for the old one under the garb of amendment in the written statement. The same cannot be permitted. The amendment so allowed as a matter of fact has changed the nature of suit. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has not correctly exercised the discretionary jurisdiction under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC while passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is fit to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Per contra Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate for the respondents/defendants contends that even though the written statement contained evasive denials, that by itself shall not preclude defendants to file elaborated amendment application bringing on record relevant facts through amendment. Further the admission in para 2 of the written statement is not an admission in strict sense, as the same needs to be read along with the averments made in the following paragraph, wherein the assertion in the plaint have been denied. Therefore, the amendment application filed has rightly been treated to be an elaboration of the averments made in the written statement. The trial Court as such, did not commit any error of law while allowing the amendment. Under such circumstance, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Heard counsel for the parties. 10. Paras 2, 5 and 6 of the plaint not only describe the suit land as ancestral property but complete genealogy of the family is described in para 2 of the plaint, wherein the suit property is shown to be that of Bhairo Lal grand-father of the petitioner, devolving upon his sons and daughters including defendant No.1 Man Singh as well as the mutation in the revenue records in the name of the legal heirs of Late Bhairo Lal. The aforesaid detailed averments in para 2 of the plaint have not been denied in para 2 of written statement, instead there is an admission that suit property is an ancestral property. Likewise, in reply to paras 5 and 6 also there is no denial of averments made thereunder, instead, it is stated that the averments are exaggerated and therefore, denied. 11. Considering averments made in the plaint and the written statement, in the opinion of this Court amendment sought by way of an elaborated application in fact tantamount to substitution of new written statement for the old one with different sets of facts of denial to the plaint of averments. 12. That apart, in the facts and circumstances, the admission that the suit property is the ancestral property appears to be natural. Therefore, such admission in written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn with the pleading that the suit property is the self acquired property without there being any semblance of any such averments in the original written statement. 13. The aforesaid view of this Court finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, hence, in the opinion of this Court, the amendment allowed by the trial Court suffers from jurisdictional error. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed, to the extent the trial Court allowed the application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC filed by the respondents/defendants on 29.4.2015.