Manmohan Sarin, J.— The appellants in this appeal are assailing the order dated 30.03.1995 passed by the Learned Single Judge, whereby the amendments sought in the written statement by the appellants were declined in the pending probate petition. The deletion of averments sought was that appellant's father Late Shri Sardar Gopal Singh never executed any Will during his life time. Additionally the appellants sought to aver that the deceased had executed another Will dated 31.10.1990, which was subsequent to the Will dated 02.07.1990, which was the subject matter of the pending petition.

2. The facts in brief culminating in the present appeal may be briefly stated:—

(i) Sardar Gopal Singh, a Hakim, expired on 18.11.1990 leaving behind his widow, one unmarried daughter, three sons and two married daughters. The widow of the deceased namely Iqbal Kaur and the unmarried daughter Jasmit Kaur filed a probate petition case No. 35/91, seeking probate of Will dated 02.07.1990, of late Sardar Gopal Singh. In the terms of the Will dated 02.07.1990, the deceased Gopal Singh had bequeathed all his movable or immovable properties in favour of Iqbal Kaur and Jasmit Kaur, respondents No. 1 and 2 in the present appeal.

(ii) The said petition was contested by the appellants namely Sardar Mahinder Singh and Jaspal Singh as well as Dr. Narinder Singh, the third son of the deceased. The appellants filed a written statement on 22.04.1992, wherein it was averred that the properties were owned by Sardar Saran Singh i.e the father of the deceased and grand father of the appellants. It was further averred that some of the properties had been allotted by the custodian against the claims of properties left behind in Pakistan by Sardar Saran Singh.

(iii) As regards the Will dated 02.07.1990, the following extract from para IV of the written statement may be usefully reproduced. “………In fact Sardar Gopal Singh never executed any Will during his life time and the Will in question is a forged document with forged signatures of the father of the replying respondents.” The alleged Will is stated to have been executed on 02.07.1990 by late S. Gopal Singh when he was enjoying good health, why the Will was not registered. It is denied that it is the last Will and Testament. On the face of it, the Will appears to have been prepared with forged signatures after the death of the father of the replying respondents, as late S. Gopal Singh himself was a very prudent litigant during his lifetime and must not have forgotten to give detail of each and every inch of property, either belonging to him or passed on to him by the grand-father of the replying respondents. The alleged Will is silent about the properties. “In fact, none of the properties belonged to late Sardar Gopal Singh as stated in para 2 above and hence he was not entitled to make or execute any Will even otherwise.”

(iv) That thereafter on 04.07.1994, an application under order VI rule 17 was moved by the appellants wherein the applicants sought the following amendments:—

(a) The words “In fact S. Gopal Singh never executed any Will during his life time and occurring in 10 and 11 lines of para 4 of the written statement be deleted.”

(b) After the existing para 4, the following sub-para be added:—

Even assuming though not admitting that a Will dated 02.07.1990 was executed by the deceased, it is respectfully submitted that the deceased on 31.10.1990 had executed another Will bequeathing the property to respondents No. 2 to 4 as well as the petitioners in the manner stated in the Will.

(v) In support of the amendment application, it was stated that on 15.04.1994 when the probate petition was adjourned for filing of documents, the appellants visited the office of Shri Mela Ram, Advocate who was the advocate and friend of the deceased to find out whether the deceased had kept with the Advocate any documents in support of the properties so that the same could be filed in proceedings in the probate petition. It is stated that the son of the Advocate informed them that Shri Mela Ram had retired and was not attending office. Further they could call after a week and in the meantime Sh. Ashwani Kumar would enquire from his father regarding the documents and have them traced. The appellants claim that thereafter again on 11.09.1994 when they visited Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate son of Shri Mela Ram, he handed over a file containing old papers. On going through the said file they discovered the Will dated 31.10.1990 It is in the light of the above subsequent events that the amendment application was filed.

(vi) That the respondents namely Iqbal Kaur and Jasmit Kaur opposed the amendment application. It was urged by them that the Will dated 31.10.1990 had been subsequently forged. The entire story of receiving the Will dated 31.10.1990 from the counsel was described as a false and fabricated plea. The attesting witnesses to the alleged Will dated 31.10.1990 were said to be a partner and a close friend of the appellant respectively. It was urged that the appellants by amending the written statement could not be permitted to withdraw the admissions and set up a contrary stand. The Learned Single Judge declined the amendment. It was held that the appellant's case being that Sardar Gopal Singh had never executed a Will, permitting them now to set up in defence a Will in their favour would cause prejudice and injury to the respondents which cannot be compensated by costs. Further that the admissions made could not be permitted to be withdrawn.

3. Shri R.M Bagai, Learned Counsel for the appellant appearing before us assailed the order of the Single Judge on the following grounds:—

(a) That the Will dated 02.07.1990 was a forged one. It did not describe the properties of the deceased. Besides no reason was given for excluding the other legal heirs while bequeathing the properties to respondent No. 1 widow and the respondent No. 2 the unmarried daughter. On the other hand, he urged that the Will dated 31.10.1990 was a genuine one by which the properties had been equitably distributed.

(b) That there was no admission which was sought to be withdrawn by the appellants and they had no knowledge of the Will dated 31.10.1990 No admission in favour of the respondents had been made with regard to the Will dated 02.07.1990 The appellants came to know of the Will dated 31.10.1990 in May 1994 only and there could not be any commitment about the same in the written statement filed.

(c) That the amendment sought was a bona fide one and necessary to determine the question in controversy. It would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

(vii) Mr. Bagai also relied on AIR 1973 Delhi 96 (V 60 C 28) titled Mangal Dass Sant Ram Gauba v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1969 SC 1267 (V 50 C 230) titled Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon and AIR 1974 SC 1178 (V 61 C 228) titled Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Proband Karini Sabha and others in support of his contention that the present amendment ought to be allowed.

4. The submissions of Mr. Bagai as regards the Will dated 2.7.1990 being a forged one is not to be considered for the purpose of this appeal. It would be open to the appellants to demonstrate the same in the pending probate petition. Similarly his argument that purported Will dated 31.10.1990 is a genuine one and equitably distributed the assets is not to be considered for the appeal. The merits of the amendment are not to be considered at this stage. The second submission of Mr. Bagai that there was no withdrawl of any admission or inconsistent plea being urged is not correct. The stand of the appellant in the written statement filed was that the properties belonged to the grand-father of the appellant's and not the deceased. Some of them had been allotted in lieu of the properties left behind in Pakistan. A categorical assertion was made that none of the properties belonged to the deceased S. Gopal Singh and he was not entitled to make or execute any Will. As regards the Will dated 2.7.1990, it was stated that he never executed any Will during his life time and the Will was a forged document. By the amendment sought, a Will dated 31.10.1990 was being propounded as a genuine one. It clearly amounts setting up of an inconsistent plea and withdrawl of the averment/admissions that no Will had ever been executed as held by the learned Single Judge.

5. It is true that withdrawl of an admission can be permitted by an amendment, provided it can be satisfactorily explained as being a result of an inadvertent error or omission (AIR 1983 SC 462 titled Panchdeo Narain Srivasstava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another). In the present case, however, the admission sought to be withdrawn and the inconsistent plea sought to be introduced cannot be attributed to any inadvertent error or omission. On the contrary, the averments made in the application for amendment do not inspire any confidence and cannot be said to have been made bona fide. It is curious that only after the case had been fixed for filing of documents in April 1994 that the appellants thought of visiting the advocate to enquire if there were any documents relating to the properties of the deceased. The requirement or relevance of filing of documents of properties of the deceased in the probate petition is not explained. It is not the appellant's case that either the Advocate or his son had found the Will dated 31.10.1990 and handed it over to them. The case set up is that an old file was returned and the appellants discovered in it the Will dated 31.10.1990 No affidavit of the counsel, Shri Mela Ram since deceased or his son Mr. Ashwani Kumar who is claimed to have handed over the file was filed alongwith the amendment application. The appellants on their own showing are said to be illiterate, having read upto 4th-5th class but on perusal of the files themselves discovered the alleged Will dated 31.10.1990

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the basis and justification for the amendment application is not credible and does not inspire any confidence. It is merely an attempt to somehow introduce inconsistent pleas and withdraw admissions made. The authorities cited by Shri R.M Bagai do not advance his case any further. In Mangal Dass Sant Ram Gauba's case (Supra), it was held that amendment cannot be refused by deciding on merits, the grounds on which amendment was sought to be introduced. The case is clearly inapplicable to the present set of facts. Similarly the case reported in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal's case (Supra) it was held that amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not to be governed by narrow or technical considerations. There is no quarrel with the principles laid down by the said decision. Similarly as per Shikharchand Jain's case (Supra), it was open to the Court to take note of subsequent events and afford relief to party in changed circumstances. None of these authorities advance the appellants case or support the amendment sought for introducing inconsistent plea destructive of the earlier stand. This cannot be permitted. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.