Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Nath vs Smt. Lajo And Ors. on 5 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR584
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 18.7.1992 of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Sunam whereby he allowed the application moved by defendants 1 and 2 under order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement.
2. Amar Nath filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale made by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 4. Defendants 3 and 4 were proceeded exparte. However, written statement on behalf of defendant No. 2 was filed in Court admitting the claim of the plaintiff. It may be noticed at this stage that the written statement was not filed through a counsel. After sometime defendants 3 and 4 moved an application for setting aside the exparte proceedings against them. The application was allowed and the said defendants were allowed to contest the suit. They pleaded that they are owner in possession of the property on the basis of a sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4. It was perhaps at that stage it came to the notice of defendant No. 2 that written statement on his behalf had been filed. He consequently moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment of the written statement. The case of respondent No. 2 is that he alongwith defendants 3 and 4 purchased the property in dispute through registered sale deed dated 3.3.1989 from defendant No. 1. The interest of defendant No. 2 is common with that of defendants 3 and 4 as all of them purchased the property through the same sale deed.
3. This application was opposed by the plaintiff on the plea that admission in the written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by seeking amendment. The trial Court, however, on a consideration of the matter, as already noticed above, allowed the application and permitted defendant No. 2 to file amended written statement. It was also noticed that defendant are yet to lead their evidence and the real controversy involved in the suit is about the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not put in appearance. I have heard learned counsel for the defendant-respondent and have also perused the order of the trial Court. On a consideration of the matter, I find that the trial Court was perfectly justified in granting the application and permitting defendant No. 2 to file amended written statement. It is true that admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn, but it is by now settled that if an admission made in the pleadings is shown to be erroneous, it can be permitted to be withdrawn. In the present case, defendants 3 and 4 are contesting the suit and claiming title to the property on the strength of sale deed executed by Smt. Lajo, not only in their favour, but also in favour of defendant No. 2. Once the property was sold by Smt. Lajo through a registered sale deed in favour of all the defendants, it is obvious that defendant No. 2 could not have filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff, wherein the sale made by Smt. Lajo in favour defendants 2 to 4 is under challenge. The admission, thus, made in the written statement earlier filed stand fully explained and it was precisely in that view of the matter that trial Court allowed defendant No. 2 to file the amended written statement by withdrawing the admission made in the earlier written statement.
5. In that view of the matter, I see no ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Revision Petition is consequently dismissed. No costs.
6. Respondents through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 31.8.1998, for further proceedings.