JUDGMENT
S.N. Jha, J.
1. The defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision. He is aggrieved by an order by which his petition for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.
2. The plaintiffs-opposite party filed Eviction -Suit No. 8 of 1988. In paragraphs 1 to 4 of the plaint in plaintiffs stated as to how the plaint in question belonged to one Mostt Jashoda Kuar as the absolute owner, which, was donated to the plaintiffs-deities by said Mostt. Jashoda Kuar under registered instrument dated 30.3.50, appointment of Ramji Prasad Singh and Lakshman Prasad Singh as mutwallis, as the said Ramji Prasad Singh is managing the property as mutwalli and collecting from defendant who has been, in occupation of the said premises described in Schedule II of the plaint, on payment of rent Rs. 50/- per month. In paragraph 5 of the written statement, the defendant admitted the aforesaid statements made in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the plaint.
3. By the impugned amendment, however, he proposes to delete the said paragraph 5 of the written statement and, in its place, to substitute a new paragraph. In the proposed new paragraph he seeks to deny the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the plaint. He further seeks to state that Ramji Prasad Singh is not the Sebait of the deities. Rather, the property of the deities had been registered as public trust with the Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious “Trust on 2.9.88. The Board earlier on 12.7.88 removed Ramji Prasad Singh from the office of mutwalli and in his place appointed one Markandaya Upadhyaya. The Court below has rejected the prayer holding that the amendment if allowed would change the nature of the case. The Court observed that the defendant had admitted his tenancy and now he cannot resile from the admission.
4. Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below committed error of record in observing that by the proposed amendment the defendant seeks to cLalm ownership in the suit premises contrary to his stand in the original written statement that he is the tenant. He also submitted that by. the proposed amendment the petitioner merely seeks to add certain facts as to the nature of the trust and the sebaitship of the plaintiff-deities which would not change the nature of the suit. He contended that it is open to party to withdraw admission of a fact by amendment. In this regard he placed reliance on Panchdeo Narayan Shrivastava v. Kumari Jyoti Sahay .
5. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party submitted that the defendant-petitioner does not merely seek to add certain facts, he rather wants to resile from the admission made earlier in the written statement. He contended that while it is open to a party to expLaln the admission, it is not open to him to withdraw such admission which would cause prejudice to the other side. In this connection he drew my attention to the statements made in paragraphs-10 and 11 of the written statement to the effect that it is Ramji Prasad Singh who had inducted the defendant as a tenant in the suit premises in which he has been carrying on shop business for last 36 years and paying rent to him (Ramji Prasad Singh). Of late, the said Ramji Prasad Singh had developed intention and in order to get the defendant evicted from the premises refused to accept the rent whereafter defendant started tendering the rent by money order. Mr. Dwivedi contended that the statements made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the written statement are consistent with the statements made in paragraph 4 of the plaint which the defendant had admitted in paragraph-5. At this stage if he is allowed to plead a new case that in the year 1988 itself Ramji Prasad Singh was removed from the office of the sebait and in his place Markandaya Upadhyaya was appointed by the Board, it is bound to cause prejudice to the plaintiff. He placed reliance on Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Raw and Co. .
6. I have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the present case is covered by the decision the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). Therein the defendants in the written statement had, inter alia, stated that certain agreement was applicable to the transaction in which the plaintiff worked as stockist-cum-distributor of the defendant. By amendment they wanted to delete the relevant paragraphs and in their place substitute new paragraphs stating, inter alia, that by virtue of the agreement the plaintiff was appointed as mercantile agent and the plaintiff acted in that capacity in placing orders on the defendant. The Supreme Court held that the defendants should not be allowed to change completely the case and substitute a different and new case. In this connection it observed that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleading but the effect of substitution of the paragraph in question is not making in-consistent and alternative pleadings but seeking to “displace” the plaintiff completely from the admission made in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied of opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. In the case of Panchdeo Narayan Shrivastava (supra), relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner, the High Court had set aside the order of the Court below allowing the amendment seeking deletion of the word “uterine” observing that deletion of the words has some significance and may work in favour of either side to a very good extent. The Supreme Court held that the ground as not tenable and the trial Court having allowed amendment on being satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute, the amendment was necessary, the High Court in civil revision ought not to have interfered.
7. As the original pleadings of the parties stand, the suit is pure and simple suit for eviction. The deities are said to be the plaintiffs. Ramji Prasad, Singh is said to be sebait. He is said to have inducted the defendant as tenant in the suit premises. The defendant on his part, does not deny that Ramji Prasad Singh had inducted him in the suit premises and he has been carrying on business in J:he premises as tenant and also paying rent to Ramji Prasad Singh. Obviously Ramji Prasad Singh has been referred to in the pleading as sebait of the deities. Any amendment seeking deletion of the admission made by the defendants in this regard and introduction of new fact to the effect that the property is registered with the Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious Trust, that is to say, it is a public trust and one Markandaya Upadhyay and not Ramji Prasad Singh is the sebait, will not only amount to ‘displacing’ Ramji Prasad Singh as sebait on behalf of the deities but also introduce new issues and thus enlarge the scope of the suit. It is well settled that in suit for eviction a third party cannot be allowed to Intervene for the reason that such intervention may introduce new issues and change the nature of the suit. On the same logic introduction of the facts, as are sought to be incorporated by the proposed amendment, may give rise to new dispute, and thus change the nature of the suit.
8. In the, above premises, in my opinion, the Court below did not commit any error in disallowing the amendment. The civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.