JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral) The petitioner, before this Court, is a plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2017 ‘Jagdish Prasad vs. Bhagwati Prasad'. In the suit thus instituted he has sought a decree in the nature of declaration as against the Will dated 16.06.2000, which has been later registered before the Sub-Registrar on 19.06.2000. The foundation of the relief sought in the suit was based on the description of the parentage as given in paragraph 1 of the plaint by the petitioner himself, wherein, he has described himself as to be the son of Late Vidya Sagar, who on his death is said to have been succeeded by Premanand, Kushlanand, Bhagwati Prasad and Jagdish Prasad, i.e. the petitioner. Jagdish Prasad is the plaintiff of the suit in question and another son of Vidya Sagar, i.e. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, is the defendant against whom the decree of declaration has been sought. In response to the pleadings of the plaint, a written statement has been filed by the defendant (respondent herein). Subsequently, the defendant on 22.08.2018 had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 by incorporating paragraph 16 in the written statement to the following effect: ß16- fd leu nLrkostksa] Ldwy fyfoax lfVZfQdsV] lsok vkosnu F.R. Form No. 13 tks oknh us Lo;a Hkjk gS esa vius firk dk uke okpLifr fy[kk gSA tks Hkwfe oknh us JhdksV xaxkukyh esa [krkSuh [kkrk la0 00042 esa 16 fgLls [kjhnh gS mleas Hkh mlds firk dk uke okpLifr gSA rFkk fo|qr la;kstd esa Hkh mlus vius firk dk uke okpLifr fy[kk;k gSA bl izdkj ls oknh dk ;g dFku og fo|k lkxj dk iq= gS Lo;a >wBk lkfcr gSA vkSj ,slh n'kk esa oknh dks nkok djus dks dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA mldk nkok foo/ku (estoppel) ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gSAÞ 2. By virtue of the amendment sought by the defendant they had sought to bring the fact on record in the written statement, which they have retrieved, with regards the documents, which they have received from the school leaving certificate, the F.R. Form No. 13, which has been submitted by the plaintiff himself duly filled by him, and the school leaving certificate, in which the plaintiff/petitioner has shown his parentage as to be being the son of Mr. Vachaspati. Vachaspati. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said amendment in case if it is permitted to be incorporated in the written statement, it would be completely changing the nature of the pleading raised by the plaintiff in his suit describing his parentage in paragraph 1 of the plaint. 3. The concept of withdrawal of an admission at the time of considering the amendment application has had to be read vis-à-vis a withdrawal of an admission as in the instant case it is said to have been made by the defendant in the written statement. The nature of amendment sought for in fact is not amounting to a withdrawal of an admission made by the defendant in the written statement, but rather its only clarificatory in nature, with regards to the pleadings already taken by the plaintiff in his suit itself with regards to the description of parentage. Such clarification made in the written statement by invoking the provisions contained Order VI Rule 17, cannot be read as to be in contradiction to the pleading of the plaintiff/petitioner in the suit or even in the written statement. 4. Even otherwise also, in case if the nature of amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement itself is taken into consideration, it was nothing but rather bringing on record the stand taken by the plaintiff himself in the various other public documents by his own entries, which he himself has endorsed his parentage. I am of the view that such type of amendment is neither amounting to withdrawing the case taken by the plaintiff of the suit or even the case of the defendant in the written statement and is not changing the complexion of the suit or respective case; it is only a clarificatory in nature clarifying the pleading already raised in paragraph 1 of the plaint, and as such the said amendment was necessary for an effective adjudication of the suit itself where a declaration was sought as against the Will dated 16.06.2000 inter se amongst the alleged real brothers. 5. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the reasons, which has been assigned in the impugned order by both the courts below concurrently to the effect that the nature of amendment, which has been sought for is necessary for an effective adjudication of the controversy as against the Will. The determination of the parentage becomes one of an important element in order to effectively adjudicate the relief sought for in the suit itself and, hence, this Court declines to exercise its extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, because even otherwise also, the plaintiff/petitioner would have his opportunity to raise a case to the contrary after the amendment is permitted to be incorporated in the written statement. 6. Thus, this Court finds that the impugned orders of allowing the amendment application in the written statement as preferred by the respondent does not suffer from any apparent error, which would call for an interference. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.