' ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.---Through this single order I intend to decided Civil Revision No,1813 of 2007 titled Ghulam All and others v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and Civil Revision No,1804 of 2007 titled Ghulam Ali v. Muhammad Anwar and others because identical question of law and facts are involved in both the revision petitions.
2. Mst. Gulzar Begum and her two sons namely Ameer Asim and Abdul Rauf filed a suit for possession through partition of property on 3-9-2001 and similarly Muhammad Anwar son of Fateh Muhammad also filed a suit for possession through partition on 3-9-2001. In both the said suits, the petitioners/defendants filed a consenting written statement on 9-1-2002 and again they filed another written statement. On 4-2-2003 (certified copies of both these written statements are available at pages 27 and 28 of this petition). On 13-3-2002 the remaining defendants were proceeded against ex parte.
3. The petitioners filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. For the amendment of the written statement for the reason that they had appointed Mr. Sagheer Hussain Advocate and also issued instructions to him that a private partition regarding the property had taken place, the parties were in possession of their respective share but the said counsel filed a consenting written statement on 9-1-2002 for the reasons known to him and also that the said counsel had obtained the signatures on blank papers and filed the written statement contrary to the instructions given to him. The same was accepted by the Senior Civil Judge, Chakwal vide order dated 16-1-2007. The said order was assailed in revision and the Addl. District Judge Chakwal vide order dated 26-7-2007 accepted the revision petition and dismissed the application seeking amendment in the written statement, hence these revision petitions.
4. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioners are that Mr. Sagheer Hussain Advocate obtained their signatures on blank papers and that he filed the consenting written statement for the reasons best known to him against the instructions given by them to him. According to him, had the petitioners filed the consenting written statement, the civil court would have decided the suit at the very first stage under Order I Rule 15, C.P.C. And that the issue have also been framed in the matter which would indicate that the petitioners/defendants were contesting the matter for its decision on merits notwithstanding the filing of the consenting written statement. Further submits that during pendency of the suit the petitioners also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. On 15-3-2006 for rejection of the plaint and the same also indicates that the petitioners are contesting the matter vigilantly. According to him the petitioners/defendants had no knowledge about filing of the consenting written statement and that this was the reason that they had been pursuing the matter regularly. Adds that the filing of the application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C.
Coupled with the fact that the petitioners are pursuing the matter would show their conduct that they intend to contest the matter on merits,
5. Conversely, the contentions of the counsel for the respondents are that consenting written statement was filed on 9-1-2002 and the application seeking amendment in the written statement was filed after about more than five years on 27-7-2007 therefore. The petitioners are estopped from their own conduct to seek any amendment in the written statement
6. Arguments of the counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. Record shows that consenting written statement was filed towel. Firstly on 9-1-2002 and secondly on 4-2-2003 which shows that the petitioners admitted the contents of the plaint. Order-sheet shows that the matter had been adjourned time and again for effecting compromise between the parties.
7. The application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Was filed on 19-10-2005 and was dismissed on 15-3-2006 i.e, after the expiry of more than four years of the filing of the consenting written statement. It appears that pleading of the parties were not divergent, therefore, there was no reason for settlement of issues. Probably the civil court settled the issues inadvertently. Through the proposed amendment the petitioners intend to substitute the entire written statement. The admitted fact is that the petitioners engaged Mr. Sagheer Hussain Advocate and also signed papers. It is not believable that they were not aware of the fact that their counsel had filed two successive written statements without their consent. Admissions made in pleading, are that of very special nature and a party making an admission in pleadings cannot be allowed to withdraw the same, it is not a case of B amendment in the written statement but it is a case of substitution of written statement which if allowed would means to cancel the earlier two successive written statements and to substitute the same. Amendment in the written statement can be allowed, where as a result of the plaintiff's evidence a new defence in law becomes available. The point regarding amendment to resile from the admission contained in the .Written statement came for consideration before the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to Government (West Pakistan) now N.-W.F.P. Department of Agriculture and Forest, Peshawar v.
Qazi Abdul Kafeel (PLD 1978 SC 242), wherein the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan after examining the scope of Order VIII Rule 5, C.P.C. Was pleased to C observe that admissions made in written statement have altogether different legal significance then admissions generally. In case reported as Islamic Education Trust, through Official Assignee v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Education Department (2008 YLR 2960) it has been held as under:-- "The admissions contained in the written statement are altogether different in nature with regard to amendment in the pleadings as the admission contained in the written statement cannot be allowed to resile by the defendant, which is not the spirit of Rule 5 of Order VIII of C.P.C. And by allowing such type of amendment in the written statement, the nature and complexion of the written statement would wholly be changed and it may become controversial, which is not the spirit of law."
8. A defendant, who has in the written statement admitted a fact, cannot by amendment be allowed to make out a new case by denying the facts.
9. In these circumstances, when the petitioners have filed consenting written statement and through amendment they intend to introduce and substitute the entire written statement to make out a new case by denying the fact at a belated stage, the amendment sought by them cannot be allowed. Resultantly, finding no force, these revision petitions fail and are dismissed.