JUDGMENT : The main prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows: “Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P-5 and set aside the same by allowing the Exhibit P-3 amendment application bearing no. IA No. 3575/2017 in OSNo.152/2006 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad.” 2. Heard Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondents will stand dispensed with. 3. The order under challenge in this Original Petition is the one at Ext.P-5, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/1st defendant for amendment of the pleadings in the written statement has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/1st defendant cannot be permitted to withdraw an admission, which will cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. The impugned Ext.P-5 order reads as follows: “ORDER Petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 2. Petition averments are as follows:-Petitioners are the defendants in the suit. Petitioners have sought to amend the written statement. The amendment sought is to delete the averment that the defendants have agreed to convey 9.60 links of property to the plaintiffs. This happened as a mistake. The said mistake is to be deleted from paragraphs 6, 8,9 & 11. 3 . Objection filed by the respondents stating as follows: This petition is not maintainable. As per the judgment in appeal the suit is remanded only to adduce evidence. This petition is barred by rule of estoppel. Hence respondents prays to dismiss the petition with costs. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The amendment sought for is to delete an averment in the written statement. The averment to be deleted is “defendant has agreed to convey 9.60 links of the property to the plaintiffs”. The same alleged as a mistake is also sought to be deleted from paragraphs 6, 8, 9 and 11 in the written statement. 6. The counsel for the defendants submits that it is only a mistake which is sought to be amended. 7. The amendment sought for cannot be treated as an inadvertent mistake. The averment sought to be amended is reiterated in different paragraphs of the written statement. This is an admission in the written statement and withdrawal of an admission cannot be permitted. 7. The amendment sought for cannot be treated as an inadvertent mistake. The averment sought to be amended is reiterated in different paragraphs of the written statement. This is an admission in the written statement and withdrawal of an admission cannot be permitted. Permitting withdrawal of an admission will cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. Hence petitioners are not entitled for an order to amend their written statement. In the result, petition is dismissed.” 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the above said reasonings of the trial court rejecting the plea for amendment of the pleadings in the written statement are against the decision of the Apex Court in the judgment in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Jyothi Sahay & anr., reported in (1984) Supp. SCC 594 : AIR 1983 SC 462 . The Apex Court in the judgment in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and ors., reported in (1998) I SCC 278, has dealt with the case where the defendants therein, in their joint written statement clearly admitted that 7 items of properties out of 10 items of properties concerned in the suit were joint family properties wherein the plaintiff had 1/3 share and the defendants had 2/3 undivided share and so it proceeded on the basis that there was no contest between the parties regarding 7 items of suit properties in the schedule thereof. The trial court then proceeded to frame the issues concerning only the remaining three items for which there was dispute between the parties. The defendants moved an application for amendment of their written objection for resiling from their above said admissions made in the written statement by contending that because of incomplete information supplied to him by his counsel in the written statement came to contain the so-called admissions regarding the schedule properties, etc. The trial court took the view that the application for amendment is not a bonafide one and it was moved only with the view to protract the proceedings and accordingly had dismissed the amendment application. The trial court took the view that the application for amendment is not a bonafide one and it was moved only with the view to protract the proceedings and accordingly had dismissed the amendment application. The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the civil revision petition filed by the defendants and held that it was settled legal position that admissions made earlier could be explained and could be given a go-by in appropriate cases and as defendant No.1 therein had wanted to go behind his earlier admission which amounted to an inconsistent stand on his part, such an inconsistent stand in the written statement could not be said to be prohibited by the procedural law. The matter was taken up before the Apex court and it was held by the Apex Court that once written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, by amendment, such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn, if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. It is profitable to refer to paragraph 9 of the above said decision in Heeralal's case (supra) reported in (1998) 1 SCC 278 , p.283, 284. “9. Now it is easy to visualize on the facts before this Court in the said case that the defendant did not seek to go behind his admission that there was an agreement of 25.1.1991 between the parties but the nature of the agreement was sought to be explained by him by amending the written statement by submitting that it was not an agreement of sale as such but it was an agreement for development of land. The facts of the present case are entirely different and consequently the said decision also cannot be of any help for the learned counsel for the respondents. Even that apart, the said decision of two learned Judges of this Court runs counter to a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of Modi Spg& Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd v. Ladha Ram & Co.,(1976 (4) SCC.320). In that case Ray, C.J., speaking for the Bench had to consider the question whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. Mills Co. Ltd v. Ladha Ram & Co.,(1976 (4) SCC.320). In that case Ray, C.J., speaking for the Bench had to consider the question whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed. If such amendments are allowed in the written statement the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. In that case a suit was filed by the plaintiff for claiming a decree for Rs.1,30,000/- against the defendants. The defendants in their written statement admitted that by virtue of an agreement dated 7.4.1967 the plaintiff worked as their stockist-cum-distributor. After three years the defendants by application under Order Vi Rule 17 sought amendment of written statement by substituting paras 25 and 26 with a new paragraph in which they took the fresh plea that the plaintiff was mercantile agent-cum-purchaser, meaning thereby they sought to go behind their earlier admission that the plaintiff was stockist-cum-distributor. Such amendment was rejected by the trial court and the said rejection was affirmed by the High Court in revision. The said decision of the High Court was upheld by this Court by observing as aforesaid. This decision of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court is a clear authority for the proposition that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, by amendment such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. Unfortunately, the aforesaid decision of the three member Bench of this Court was not brought to the notice of the Bench of two learned Judges that decided the case in Akshaya Restaurant (1995 Supp.(2) SCC.303). In the latter case it was observed by the Bench of two learned Judges that it was settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. In the latter case it was observed by the Bench of two learned Judges that it was settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. The aforesaid observations in the decision in Akshaya Restaurant proceed on an assumption that it was the settled law that even the admissions can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. However the aforesaid decision of the three-member Bench of this Court in Modi Spg., to the effect that while granting such amendments to written statement no inconsistent or alternative plea can be allowed which would displace the plaintiff's case and cause him irretrievable prejudice.” 5. Thus the Apex Court has clearly and unequivocally held that withdrawal of admissions made in the written statement for the defendant which would displace the plaintiff's case and cause him irretrievable prejudice will not be permissible and that such an amendment cannot be allowed etc. In the judgment in Ram Nirajan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and ors., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 203 the Apex Court has dealt with the scope of Order VI Rule 17 and Order XII of CPC and held that admissions made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by amendment, but application may be made for explaining or clarifying the admissions etc. In that case, admissions were made in the written statement in a partition suit, by defendants 5 and 12 therein relinquishing their claim in respect of their share in the joint family property. Later, applications were moved by defendants 5 and 12 seeking withdrawal of admissions by way of amendment in pleadings and it was held therein that the same is liable to be rejected. However, it was held that amendment in the written statement can be sought for introduction of a new fact or explanation or clarification of admission or for taking alternate position and delay itself cannot be crucial in case of application for such amendment. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held by the Apex Court that defendants 5 and 12 should be given an opportunity to explain and clarify admissions made in the written statement. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held by the Apex Court that defendants 5 and 12 should be given an opportunity to explain and clarify admissions made in the written statement. Accordingly, said defendants 5 and 12 were permitted to file application within one month limiting their prayer only to the extent of explaining and clarifying the admissions which were then directed to be considered on merits, etc. This aspect has also been earlier so categorically held in a Three-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd v. Ladha Ram & Co., reported in (1976) 4 SCC 320 , where His Lordship Chief Justice A.N.Ray speaking on behalf of that Bench had to consider the question as to whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to his earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the case of the plaintiff completely from the admission made by the defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed, as otherwise it would be seriously prejudiced, etc. So the law in the matter is well settled that amendment of the pleadings in the written statement filed by the defendant cannot be permitted which would have the effect of displacing the plaintiff's case and cause him irretrievable prejudice, etc. But that the defendants could be given an opportunity to explain or clarifying the admissions made by them in the written statement, which then should be considered on merits. 6. It has also been held in para 11 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal & ors., reported in (1998) 1 SCC 278 , that the Two-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Jyothi Sahay & anr., reported in (1984) Supp. SCC 594 : AIR 1983 SC 462 cannot be of any assistance to the respondents inasmuch as the deletion of the pleadings by way of amendments was not found to be displacing the earlier case of the plaintiff therein. SCC 594 : AIR 1983 SC 462 cannot be of any assistance to the respondents inasmuch as the deletion of the pleadings by way of amendments was not found to be displacing the earlier case of the plaintiff therein. Further a Three-Judge bench of the Apex Court in para 23 of Ram Nirajan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and ors., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 203 , held that their Lordships agree with the legal position in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram & ors., reported in (1974) 1 SCC 242 and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 85 , that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment and to that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Jyothi Sahay & anr., reported in (1984) Supp. SCC 594 : AIR 1983 SC 462 , does not reflect the correct legal position and hence the same has been overruled. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court cannot be faulted for having rejected the plea made by the petitioner for amendment of the pleadings in the written statements of the defendants inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be permitted to retract from the earlier admission made in the pleadings. However, in the light of the above said directions issued by the Apex Court in Ram Nirajan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and ors., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 203 , an application could be made by the petitioner explaining the admission already made in the written statement, etc. If such an application is filed by the petitioner/defendant within 2 weeks from the date notified for receiving a certified copy of this judgment, for amendment of the pleadings of the written statement so as to explain or clarify the admissions in the written statement, then such plea should be considered by the trial court on merits, after hearing both sides and in accordance with law and in the light of the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in that regard. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this proceedings, the petitioner/defendant has already filed I.A.No.692/2018 in the above said O.S.No.152/2006 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad, for amendment of pleadings in the written statement so as to explain and clarify the admission already made by that party, etc. If that be so, the trial court will consider the matter in accordance with law and after hearing both sides and in the light of the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court as stated hereinabove. If the application is still pending orders, then orders should be passed thereon without much delay, preferably within a period of 2-3 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the light of these aspects, the prayer to set aside the impugned order cannot be granted. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the court below concerned for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.