ORDER
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. Instant revision impugns the order dated December 6, 1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ladnu, whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) moved under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed.
2. Brief re'sume' of the facts is that the plaintiff submitted an application in the trial Court under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. to the effect that he does not want to press paras Nos. 6 and 7 ka, kha, ga, gha, da, cha, and chha and wants to amend para No. 7 Gha. The defendants 1 to 5 did not file reply to the application. The defendant No. 6, however, submitted reply to the application by raising objection that the plaintiff was bound by his admission made in the plaint and if the amendment is allowed then it would prejudice the case of the defendant, as the original shape of the plaint shall be changed.
3. The learned trial Court dismissed the application vide the impugned order placing reliance on Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa, (1995) 2 Raj LW (SC) 118 : (AIR 1995 SC 1498). Learned counsel Shri K. N. Joshi. submitted that admissions can be explained and even inconsistent plea could be taken in the pleadings.
4. On the other hand, Mr. K.C. Samdariya and Manish Shishodia, learned counsel for the defendants supported the impugned order and placed reliance on Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, (1907) 9 JT (SC) 267 : (1998 AIR SCW 219).
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the impugned order and the case law cited before me. In Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa (AIR 1995 SC 1498) (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus (Para 5)--
'It is settled law that even the admission can he explained and even inconsistent pleas could he taken in the pleadings.' 6. But in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal (1998 AIR SCW 219) (supra). Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa (AIR 1995 SC 1498) (supra) was discussed and distinguished and propounded thus (Para 10 of AIR)--
'Consequently, it must be held that when the amendment sought in the written statement was of such a nature as to displace the plaintiff's case it could not be allowed as ruled by a three member Bench of this Court. This aspect was unfortunately not considered by latter Bench of two learned Judges and to the extent to which the latter decision took a contrary view qua such admission in written statement, it must he held that it was per incuriam being rendered without being given an opportunity to consider the binding decision of it three member Bench of this Court taking a diametrically opposite view.' 7. Thus in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal's case (1998 AIR SCW 219) (supra), the case of Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa (AIR 1995 SC 1498) (supra), was declared per incuriam by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in view of the decision of Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co. (1977) I SCR 728 : (AIR 1977 SC 680). In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court had to consider the question whether the defendant can he allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely form the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed.
8. In Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay, 1984 Supp SCC 594 : (AIR 1983 SC 462), the plaintiff was held entitled to amend his plaint by submitting that though earlier he stated that the defendant was uterine brother, the plaintiff by amendment in his plaint could submit that the defendant was his brother and the word 'uterine' could be dropped. Even in that case the main case put forward by the plaintiff did not get changed as the plaintiff wanted to submit that the defendant was his brother. Whether he was uterine brother or real brother was a question of decree and depended on the nature of evidence that may be led before the Court. Therefore the ratio propounded in the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand.
9. In view of the ratio propounded in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co., (AIR 1977 SC 680) (supra) by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his plaint by withdrawing the admissions made in the plaint so as to displace the defendants completely from the admissions made in the plaint. As the case of Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa (AIR 1995 SC 1498) (supra) cited by Mr. K. N. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has been declared per incuriam by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal (1998 AIR SCW 219) (supra), it will be of no help to the plaintiff.
10. Result of the foregoing discussions is that the impugned order of the learned trial Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.
11. Resullantly, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.