JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Civil Misc. Petition involves an order of rejection on an application under Order 6 rule 17 of C.P.C. at the instance of the defendant-petitioners appearing at Annexure-4. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the opposite party, as plaintiff filed C.S. No.8/2013 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Paralakhemundi against the present petitioners praying for eviction of the petitioners or any other persons claiming under them from the suit schedule premises and for delivery of possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and/or his authorised agent. Plaintiff has also claimed compensation from the date of suit till actual delivery of possession of the suit schedule premises. On their appearance the defendants filed their written statement jointly denying the plaint allegation. After examination of the plaintiff witnesses got closed during course of evidence of D.W.3 coming to know that the suit property was purchased by some other persons of St. Marry Church, Chandiput by way of sale deeds and the said land wrongly recorded in the name of the plaintiff, the defendants instead of giving evidence filed amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking amendment of their written statement. Application was seriously objected. Taking into consideration the plea of both the sides, the trial court rejected the application for amendment giving rise to the present Civil Misc. Petition. 3. Sri Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants in the court below) submitted that the amendment involving the facts was not within the knowledge of the defendants and came to their knowledge only during course of examination of D.W.3. It is accordingly claimed that there was no illegality in bringing such amendment and further it is also alleged that the trial court not only decided the matter without application of appropriate mind but also rejected the application on the ground of delay in filing such application again appears to be inappropriate, particularly looking to the availability of information to the defendants on the materials sought to be brought by way of amendment. Further since the amendment was aimed in ensuring effective adjudication and restricting multiplicity of litigations for the interest of the parties, the application ought to have been allowed. It is on the above premises, Sri Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order being erroneous and illegal should be interfered with and set aside. Further since the amendment was aimed in ensuring effective adjudication and restricting multiplicity of litigations for the interest of the parties, the application ought to have been allowed. It is on the above premises, Sri Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order being erroneous and illegal should be interfered with and set aside. 4. Sri Panigrahi, learned counsel for the opposite party, particularly appearing for the plaintiff objecting each of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that by way of proposed amendment, the defendants are attempting to withdraw their admission in their written statement. For the amendment being moved after the observation of the trial court dated 30.8.2016, the opposite party also claimed that the amendment application was filed with ulterior motive. It is also contended by Sri Panigrahi that the amendment has been brought at the particular stage of the suit with clear intention to not only delay the trial but also to have a de novo trial thereby forcing the plaintiff to amend his pleading in the plaint and recalling the witnesses examined so far. Referring to two decisions of the Hon’ble apex Court in the cases of Heeralal vrs. Kalyan Mal & others reported in AIR 1998 SC 618 and Pramod Kumar Prusty & others vrs. Aina Prusty (since dead) represented by her legal heirs and others reported in 2014(II) CLR-928, Sri Panigrahi, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the said decisions have direct application to the case of the opposite party and further there being no infirmity in the impugned order, this Court should dismiss the Civil Misc. Petition. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the undisputed fact remains that admittedly there are admissions about the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land in the written statement of the defendants clearly borne in paragraphs-4 & 8. Looking to the proposed amendment, this Court finds, the defendants’ attempting to introduce a new plea is wholly contrary to their admission in paragraphs-4 & 8. Looking to the proposed amendment, this Court finds, the defendants’ attempting to introduce a new plea is wholly contrary to their admission in paragraphs-4 & 8. Further for the pleadings in the plaint and written statement for being already involved up till closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the new facts sought to be introduced appear to be not germane to the pleading in the plaint and written statement but since it contradicts the admission already made by the defendants will certainly bring facts only to confuse the plea of the parties involving the suit as well as in the written statement. There may be possibility of change of nature and character of the suit in the process. Further for the rejection of sale deed involved in the new pleadings sought to be brought by way of amendment being introduced at the instance of the defendants being rejected and not challenged any further, allowing such amendment will also amount to sit over the rejection order dated 30.8.2016 passed by the trial court and remain unchanged. It is, therefore, observed that the trial court after considering all the above has found the amendment application as not permissible at that stage of the suit. 6. For the settled proposition of law that no amendment should be allowed to put the plaintiff to retrievably prejudice for being denied with opportunity of extracting the admission already made by the defendants, as held by the Hon’ble apex Court in Heerala vrs. Kalyan Mal & others (supra), this Court finds, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. As a result, this Court declining to interfere with the impugned order dismisses the Civil Misc. Petition. No cost.