ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein order dated 12.06.2018 passed in Title Suit No.38 of 2015 is under challenge whereby and whereunder petition dated 08.04.2018 filed on behalf of plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that a suit for declaration of title over the landed property in question has been filed apart from a decree for permanent injunction and for recovery of possession. 3. The defendants have appeared and filed their written statement on 18.04.2016 and submitted that answering defendants are in possession of the suit land since 1957, neither the vendor of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff were in possession of the suit land at any point of time, the alleged sale deed is not binding upon the answering defendants and the suit is at the stage of framing of the issues and at that stage, a petition was filed on 04.04.2018 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for seeking the amendment in the plaint as follows:- “(i) Paragraph No.-4- In third line at Page No.4 of the plaint “Permitted to remain” be inserted between “were” and “in”. (ii) Paragraph No.-6- In the 15th line at Page No.4 of the plaint “on 05.02.2009” be deleted and “it is pertinent to mention here that during negotiation to purchase the suit land” be inserted between “That” and “the”. (iii) Paragraph No.-6-In the 6th line at Page No.5 of the plaint “concubine” be deleted and in its place “wife” be inserted between “his” and “Malho”. (iv) Paragraph No.-7- In the last at Page No.6 of the plaint following line be added “It is also important to mention here that Principal Defendants and Pratap Samad @ Tibbu Samad aforesaid had taken Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakhs fifty thousands) in cash from plaintiff on 06.01.2009 in lieu of executing the affidavit cum no objection aforesaid. Even Principal Defendant No.1 and Pratap Samad aforesaid are the attesting witnesses of the Sale Deed aforesaid and after execution of the sale deed Principal defendants were residing in one Khapparposh room with the permission of the plaintiff on humanitarian ground as they had asked for some time for searching house and vacating the Khaparposh room under their possession”. 4. Even Principal Defendant No.1 and Pratap Samad aforesaid are the attesting witnesses of the Sale Deed aforesaid and after execution of the sale deed Principal defendants were residing in one Khapparposh room with the permission of the plaintiff on humanitarian ground as they had asked for some time for searching house and vacating the Khaparposh room under their possession”. 4. The defendants have filed objection inter-alia it has been stated that if the amendment would be allowed, nature of suit will be changed and cause of action will also be changed and as such the same is fit to be rejected and accordingly the trial Court has passed an order rejecting the aforesaid petition assigning reason therein that if the aforesaid amendment would be allowed it will change the previous stand and as such the same is not formal in nature rather the petitioner wants to resile from her previous statement made in the plaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the case at length, has submitted that the amendment sought for is formal in nature and since the issue has not yet been framed, therefore, there is no question of change of the nature of suit, moreover, if the amendment sought for is allowed, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants for the reason that the defendants will have their chance of leading evidence in rebuttal at the appropriate stage even by filing additional written statement. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone across the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order, and from its perusal it is evident that a declaratory suit along with the decree for permanent injunction has been filed, the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement. 7. 7. It is evident from the pleadings made by the petitioner in the plaint, the main stand pleaded therein is that the plaintiff came in possession over one Khappraposh room and remained on suit land more or less 3 Kathas and the principal defendants were in occupation of one Khappraposh room within the suit land and further it is evident that on 05.02.2009, the plaintiff came to learn that in the record of rights finally published in the year 1964, illegal possession of one Gan Samad, son of Pratap Samad has wrongly been recorded in the remarks column of the Khatiyan since the year 1957 and one Gan Samad died leaving behind his son Mika Samad who also died leaving behind his wife Sakri Samad @ Sumitra Samad, who is the principal defendant No.1 and one son Pratap Samad and Pratap Samad also died leaving behind his concubine Malho Samad who is the principle defendant No.2 in the suit as his legal heirs and successors and the principal defendant Nos.1 & 2 are in occupation of one Khappraposh room within the suit land fully described in the schedule below and by virtue of petition filed under Order VI Rule 17, the amendment sought for is for insertion at paragraph 4 in the third line in between the words “were” and “in” to insert “ Permitted to remain” while paragraph No.-6 i.e., 15th line at page No.4” on 05.02.2009” be deleted and “it is pertinent to mention here that during negotiation to purchase the suit land” be inserted between “That” and “the”, meaning thereby, in place of first line of paragraph No.6 in the plaint that on 05.02.2009, the plaintiff came to learn that the word sought to be inserted is for deleting 05.02.2009 to the effect that “it is pertinent to mention here that during negotiation to purchase the suit land” the plaintiff came to learn in the records of right finally published in the year 1964 and thereafter at para No.7 at page No.6, the line i.e., “ It is also important to mention here that Principal Defendants and Pratap Samad @ Tippu Samad aforesaid had taken Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakhs fifty thousands) in cash from plaintiff on 06.01.2009 in lieu of executing the affidavit cum no objection aforesaid. Even the Principal Defendant No.1 and Pratap Samad aforesaid are the attesting wtinesses of the Sale Deed aforesaid and after execution of the sale deed Principal defendants were residing in one Khappraposh room with the permission of the plaintiff on humanitarian ground as they have asked for some time for searching house and vacating the Khappraposh room under their possession”. It does suggest from going across the pleadings made in the plaint that the plaintiff has accepted the occupation of the principal defendants over the suit property and he came to know about the same on 05.02.2009 that the principal defendants were in illegal possession of the suit property since by virtue of the amendment the case has been sought to be made by disputing the occupation by converting it into a permission to remain in occupation and then only knowing about the said occupation at the time of execution of the affidavit cum no objection, meaning thereby, the pleading as well as ground raised in the plaint have been sought to be changed by way of aforesaid amendment, hence, it will be said to be resiling or recalling of the pleadings made by the plaintiff in the plaint. 8. The question herein is that as to whether the amendment can be allowed if the statement made in the pleading is being sought to be resiled or recalled. 9. The issue pertaining to the same has been discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 85 which was delivered after considering the judgment rendered in the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava vs. Jyoti Sahay, reported in 1984 Supp SCC 594 and Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Ladha Ram & Co., reported in (1976) 4 SCC 320 has been pleased to laid down at paragraph No.28 which reads as follows:- “28. What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive or each other.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria vs. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and ors., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 203 has been pleased to hold at para No.23 that the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava (supra), does not reflect the correct legal position and has been overruled. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid position of law and the factual aspect involved in the instant case, the suit for declaration of right and title is being claimed by the plaintiff and permanent injunction as also the delivery of possession since according to the case of the plaintiff, the principal defendants are in occupation of the aforesaid landed property and hence, in the pleading it is the admitted case that the principal defendants are in occupation of the landed property without any permission from the petitioner now by virtue of the amendment the nature of occupation is tried to be amended to that of the permission of having occupation and the statement made at para no.7 is also sought to be changed in its entirety as has been referred in para No.6 of the plaint with respect to knowing about the occupation. The admitted case of the plaintiff as per the plaint is that on 05.02.2009 they were knowing about their occupation but by virtue of the amendment sought for, the occupation has been tried to be shown from the date during negotiation to purchase the suit land and at paragraph No.6 in the 6th line at page No.5 of the plaint “concubine” be deleted and in its place “wife” be inserted between the words “his” and “Malho”, therefore the status of Malho Samad, concubine to be changed it to the wife of Pratap Samad and the aforesaid amendment has been sought for after the specific denial made by the defendants at paragraph No.13 wherein it has been pleaded that by treating the defendant No.2, a concubine of Pratap Samad and at paragraph No.7, the dispute has been raised of having no possession of the plaint over the suit property, therefore, the amendment has been sought for after the serious objection has been made by the defendants in the written statement, and thereafter, the amendment by way of resiling from the statement made by the petitioner from the plaint has been made. 11. The trial Court after considering the entire aspect of the matter and looking to the nature of amendment sought for has rejected the same, therefore, this Court is in disagreement with the aforesaid finding and more particularly is concurring with the reason recorded therein in view of the settled position of law as referred hereinabove that the amendment for resiling from the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint cannot be allowed. 12. In view thereof and looking to the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India which has got very limited power to exercise the same by invoking the revisable jurisdiction, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, accordingly the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.