ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. Challenge is to an order dated 3.5.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 112A/2013; whereby, the trial Court has dismissed the application for consequential amendment in the written statement on the findings that if the application is allowed the same would lead to permitting the defendant from retracting the admission in the written statement. 3. The suit at the instance of the respondent No.1-plaintiff is for declaration, possession, mesne profit and for permanent injunction in respect of the land ad-measuring 0.46 hectare of Survey No. 231 Min. 1 situated at Village Rithoryan, Tahsil Kolaras. Contending inter-alia that out of 1.10 hectare of said survey numbers the plaintiff sold 0.64 hectare to the defendant (present petitioner) vide sale-deed dated 7.12.2009 which led to division of Survey No. 231 Min. 3. That on remaining 0.46 hectare as the defendant resorted to construct boundary wall allegedly over the land bearing Survey No. 231 Min 1 ad-measuring 0.46 hectare, led the plaintiff file the suit, seeking declaration of title, possession, mesne profit. Later, the plaintiff sought the leave to challenge the sale-deed dated 25.1.2005 registered on 26.11.2005. The amendment was allowed. The defendant while seeking consequential amendment in the written statement sought to withdraw the following admission made in paragraphs 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, viz. ^^vkSj oknh dh 'ks"k Hkwfe 0-46 vkjs ekSds ij gSA^^ The trial Court declined the application on the findings that the defendant cannot be allowed to withdraw the admission. The amendment was allowed. The defendant while seeking consequential amendment in the written statement sought to withdraw the following admission made in paragraphs 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, viz. ^^vkSj oknh dh 'ks"k Hkwfe 0-46 vkjs ekSds ij gSA^^ The trial Court declined the application on the findings that the defendant cannot be allowed to withdraw the admission. The trial Court observed: ^^çdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlls Li"V gS fd Áfroknhx.k@vkosndx.k us mDr dfFkr vkosnuksa ds ek/;e ls eq[; :i ls oknh ls fnukad 25-11-2005 dks —f"k Hkwfe losZ Øekad 231 feu 1 jdok 1-10 gSDVs;j esa ls jdok 0-37 gsDVs;j rFkk fnukad 7-12-2009 dks 0-64 gSDVs;j —f"k Hkwfe [kjhn djuk rFkk oknh dh ekSds ij 0-09 gSDVs;j —f"k Hkwfe 'ks"k jg tkus ls tckonkos esa vkosnuksa ds vuqlkj la'kks/ku djuk pkgk gSA ;|fi Áfroknhx.k@vkosndx.k }kjk ÁLrqr tckonkos esa mDr rF;ksa esa ls 0-64 gSDVs;j Hkwfe [kjhn djuk rks vfHkopfur fd;k gS ijarq 'ks"k rF;ksa ds foijhr vfHkopu djrs gq, vius tckonkos dh dafMdk 1] 2] 5] 7] 9 o 17 esa Li"V :i ls oknh ls losZ Øekad 231 feuŒ 1 esa ls 0-04 gSDVs;j —f"k Hkwfe [kjhn djuk rFkk ekSds ij oknh dh 0-46 gSDVs;j —f"k Hkwfe 'ks"k jg tkuk Lohdkjk gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr vkosnuksa ds ek/;e ls Áfroknhx.k@vkosndx.k vius tckonkos esa u;s rF;ksa dks ugha tksM+ ldrsA Áfroknhx.k@ vkosndx.k }kjk tks la'kks/ku pkgs x, gS og ,sls ugha gS tks mUgsa iwoZ ls tkudkjh esa ugha jgs gksaA mDr la'kks/ku ifj.kkfed Li:i ds ugha gksdj tckonkos esa u;s rF;ksa dks lekfo"V djrs gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd ftu rF;ksa dks Áfroknhx.k@vkosndx.k us vius tckonkos esa Lohdkj fd;k gks vc mUgh rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk ldrhA^^ 4. The petitioners placing reliance on the decision in Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and another, (2006) 6 SCC 498 ; and Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another, (2009) 14 SCC 38 , though submit that the inconsistent plea in a written statement is permissible. However, in the present case under the garb of inconsistent plea, the petitioners/defendants in fact had proposed to withdraw the admission that the land ad-measuring 0.46 hectare was left with the plaintiff retraction of such on admission is impermissible as held in M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. However, in the present case under the garb of inconsistent plea, the petitioners/defendants in fact had proposed to withdraw the admission that the land ad-measuring 0.46 hectare was left with the plaintiff retraction of such on admission is impermissible as held in M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. LTD and another v. Ladha Ram (1976) 4 SCC 320 : AIR 1977 SC 680 , it has been held - "10. It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paras 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. The High Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the trial Court." 5. In view whereof, since the impugned order does not suffer jurisdictional error, no interference is caused. 6. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. No costs.