JUDGMENT : C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Advocate Coutinho waives service on behalf of the contesting respondent nos. 7 to 10. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs, are challenging the order dated 15.11.2016, below Exhibit-D/56, passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 40/2013. By the impugned order, the application Exhibit-D/56, for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the petitioners are trying to withdraw an admission. 3. The petitioners have filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents for declaration, injunction and correction of survey record. The case made out is that the petitioners had sold a plot admeasuring 2,000 square metres to the defendant no. 3, Ulhas Devidas, under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1984. Ulhas Devidas divided the said plot into two portions, admeasuring 1,000 square metres each, out of which, one portion was sold to the defendant no. 5, who is his brother and the other portion to defendant no. 7, who is his brother-in-law. Admittedly, the contesting respondent nos. 9 and 10 are the purchasers of the portion of the plot from the defendant nos. 7 and 8. There is a plan annexed to the sale deed, in which, the plot is originally sold to the defendant no. 3, which is shown as survey no. 1/1. According to the petitioners, the plot which was sold to the defendant no. 3 is part of survey no. 2/1, which is also according to the petitioners owned by them, although, it stands in the name of the Communidade in the Revenue Records. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioners, by the proposed amendment, before the commencement of the trial are seeking to add the following paras: "31. (a) Plaintiffs submit that the plan annexed to the sale deed of the defendant No. 3 was managed to prepare by the defendant No. 3 which is not correct being same is wrongly depicted in the plan at another place then the plot sold to him. Consequently, same mistake/error is followed in all subsequent sale deeds plan which are also not correct. 31. Consequently, same mistake/error is followed in all subsequent sale deeds plan which are also not correct. 31. (b) Plaintiffs submit that the Defendant/their ancestors who were the parties as vendors to the sale deed of the Defendant No. 3 were illiterate, consequently unable to read the plan attached to the sale deed of the defendant No. 3 showing the location of the said sale deed plan. These plaintiffs came to know about it only when the Defendant No. 9 and 10 demarcated the said plot at loco in the year 2013." 5. The application was opposed on behalf of the respondents on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the petitioners are trying to withdraw an admission, which has been accepted by the learned Trial Court. 6. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find that by the proposed amendment, the petitioners are trying to withdraw any admission as such. All that the petitioners want to incorporate is that the plan annexed to the sale deed was prepared by the defendant no. 3 himself. All along, it has been the case of the petitioners that the plot sold to the defendant no. 3 is part of survey no. 2/1 and not 1/1. Thus, the reasoning articulated by the learned Trial Court that by the proposed amendment, the petitioners are trying to withdraw an admission, to my mind is not correct. It is well settled that the merits of the amendment cannot be gone into, at this stage. 7. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside. (iii) The application (Exhibit D-56) is hereby allowed. (iv) Necessary amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. (v) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.