Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred to the decision of Privy Council referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in AIR 1922 PC 249 (supra) and its own decision reported in 1998 (1) SCC 278. A more apposite point explaining the contention of the respondent, according to the respondent's counsel, is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puran Ram Vs. Bhaguram and Anr. 2008(2) RCR(Civil) 499 where, while dealing with a case of plaintiff seeking to amend the pleadings in relation to description of the property, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed such an amendment against the recital in the document. In Basavan Jaggu Dhobi Vs. Sukhnand Ramdas Chaudhary 1995 Supp (3) SCC 179, the Hon'ble Apex Court adverted to amendment of pleadings through a written statement that took an inconsistent view to the original pleading and holding that it was always possible for a defendant to take inconsistent pleas, said that the defendant could not be barred by bringing an amendment for taking a plea contrary to that originally taken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had in an earlier decision in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another AIR 1983 SC 462 adversely commented about the interference of the High Court in revision to an order of the trial Court allowing an application for amendment where the order impugned had permitted an amendment to be brought seeking withdrawal of admission already made in the pleadings. The other decisions that have permitted the pleadings to be amended that either withdrew an admission or explained the admission have been reported in Bant Singh Vs. Kuldeep Singh and another 1995 PLJ 13; Pavithran Vs. Narayanan 1997 (4) RCR (Civil) 445; Jagroop Singh and another Vs. Bhjna 1994 PLJ 616 and Gujjar Singh Vs. Gulzar Singh and others Vol.C- (1991-2) PLR 266, all of which have permitted amendments to either explain an admission or withdraw admission made in the in the earlier proceedings.

(iii) Admissions are the best form of evidence which a party can rely against the other, but such admissions could always be explained whether the admission was made under the circumstances that either vitiated the admission or explained the admission.

(iv) The amendment of pleadings are brought out only to eliminate surprise at the trial for allowing the parties to make the correct statements of facts, so that no fact which is inconsistent with pleading is ever brought before the Court through documents or evidence.

(v) The pleadings form the bedrock of the legal edifice brought to Court for adjudication and if there has been any inadvertent error, it shall be not allowed to come in way to fetter the rights of parties interminably.

9. To the credit of the counsel for the revision petitioner, it must be stated that the counsel also brought to my attention a decision in Baldev Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh 2006 (4) SCC 498 which spelt out a new paradigm in that it declared that while considering applications for amendment of pleadings, the Court shall be more lenient in the matter of a written statement filed by a defendant than a plaintiff's plaint. The learned counsel said that this decision ought not to be taken as stating any law which was wholly different from the general march of law that has taken place relating to admissions and spelt out forcefully in the decision of AIR 1922 PC 249 (supra) and two decisions in AIR 1977 SC 680 and 1998 (1) SCC 278 (supra) that admissions made once cannot be whittled down by inconsistent pleadings introduced through amendments.

VI. Conclusion:-

13. I have, after a careful consideration of the reasoning adopted by the trial Court, come to the conclusion that in the given circumstances, the order of the Courts below was correct. However, the deposit of money in Court is no longer necessary. After all, the defendant does not admit his liability to execute the sale deed, as of present. The plaintiff shall be permitted to withdraw the amount directed earlier to be deposited by him. The order of the Court below is hereby confirmed subject to the right of taking back the amount deposited by him for the present. After the amendment is carried out in the pleadings, the plaintiff shall be permitted to file a reply to bring out the aspects as contended by him. There could be no fetter on the right of the plaintiff to even show that the inconsistent pleadings that had been introduced by the defendant was a deflection from truth. After the reply to the written statement is permitted to be filed to the plaintiff, the Court shall frame the necessary issues and take up for adjudication as expeditiously as possible.