TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their written statement, they did not deny or dispute execution of the Will by Shanti Sarup. 6. Respondent No.6, however, filed another written statement denying and disputing the claim of the appellants in toto. She also filed an application on 28.8.2000 for permission to take the first written statement off the records and to file another written statement on the premise that she had not engaged the said M.P. Vasudeva, nor had she filed any written statement through him. She denied and disputed her signatures appearing on the said written statement. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. 7. A revision petition was filed by the appellant thereagainst. By a judgment and order dated 15.3.2002, the High Court, while setting aside the said order of the learned Trial Judge dated 12.9.2001 directed it to hold an enquiry at the first instance as to whether the respondent No.6 ever engaged Mr. Vasudeva, Advocate or ever signed the written statement which had been placed on record. It was directed that in the event the findings of the said enquiry go in her favour, it will be open to her to file the second written statement or the one which has been filed by her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, submitted (a) Admission being an evidence against a person making the same, the onus would be on him to show that it was made under some mistake or otherwise and, thus, the amendment of written statement is permissible in law. (b) Apart from Respondent No.6, six other defendants had denied or disputed the correctness of the Will pursuant whereto an issue was framed and as such the question as to whether she made any admission in her first written statement or not is wholly academic. (c) Although a person making admission should not ordinarily be permitted to resile therefrom, there does not exist any bar to explain such admission or clarify the same and in that view of the matter such portion of the application for amendment of written statement, which seeks to explain the admission and/or clarify the same should be permitted to be retained. 12. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads, thus : 17. Amendment of pleadings--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the defendants. The High Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the trial court. 17. A Two Judge Bench of this Court, without noticing the binding precedent in Modi Spinning (supra), in Panchdeo Rarain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay Anr. [1984 Supp. SCC 594], stated : But the learned counsel for the respondents contended that by the device of amendment a very important admission is being withdrawn. An admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. Therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. Yet again, in Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa Anr. [1995 Supp.(2) SCC 303], the following observations were made by the Court : We find no force in the contention. It is settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. It is seen that in para 6 of the written statement a definite stand was taken by subsequently in the application for amendment it was sought to be modified as indicated in the petition. In that view of the matter, we find that there is no material irregularity committed by the High Court in exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties in Schedule A of the plaint. 19. Hiralal (supra) has been recently noticed by this Court in Sangramsinh P. Gaekwar Ors. v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) through LRs. Ors. [(2005) 11 SCC 314], wherein it is stated : 215.Admissions made by Respondent 1 were admissible against her proprio vigore. 216. In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam this Court held : ... Admissions if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the ot her hand, evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong. (See also Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad.) 217. In Viswalakshmi Sasidharan v. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank this Court held : On the other hand, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. XXX XXX XXX 20. ... The court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide. There is a plethora of precedents pertaining to the grant or refusal of permission for amendment of pleadings. The various decisions rendered by this Court and the proposition laid down therein are widely known. This Court has consistently held that the amendment to pleading should be liberally allowed since procedural obstacles ought not to impede the dispensation of justice. These decisions for the reasons stated supra are not applicable in the instant case. 21. Recently, in Usha Balashaheb Swami Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 602], this Court observed : 26. Therefore, it was neither a case of withdrawal of admission made in the written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined in her written statement filed on 30.3.2000 might not constitute `admission' in the eyes of law. In such a situation, in law, she must be held to have not filed any written statement at all. It was bound to be taken off the records and substituted by a written statement which was properly and legally filed. Such a contention raised on the part of respondent No.6 having been rejected by the learned Trial Judge as also by the High Court, in our opinion, the submission of Mr. Verma that she should be permitted to explain her admissions does not and cannot arise. 26. We are herein concerned with her right to maintain an application for an amendment of the written statement when her second written statement has not been accepted. Submission of Mr. Verma that in any event other respondents having denied and disputed the genuineness of the Will and an issue in that behalf having been framed, the appellant in no way shall be prejudiced if the amendment of the written statement be allowed, cannot be accepted. In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Verma on Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 115]. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
