Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Will executed by Shanti Sarup on 23.9.1999, bequeathing properties to the appellant and Ritu Sarup. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which led to various written statements and counterclaims by the respondents. Respondent No.6, Leela Jetly, initially admitted the claims but later sought to amend her written statement to dispute her earlier admissions, claiming she had not engaged her lawyer and did not sign the statement. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the appellant challenged this in the High Court, which directed an enquiry into the matter. The enquiry concluded that Leela Jetly had indeed engaged the lawyer and filed the written statement. The High Court dismissed the appellant's revision against the amendment, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding admissions in pleadings and the conditions under which amendments can be made. It concluded that a party cannot resile from a clear admission made in a written statement, and thus, the amendment sought by respondent No.6 was impermissible. The court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of admissions in legal proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Permissibility of Amendment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 17 - The court held that a party cannot resile from a categorical admission made in a written statement, and any amendment seeking to do so is impermissible. The court emphasized that while amendments should be liberally allowed, they cannot be permitted if they seek to negate prior admissions made by the party (Paras 24-28).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent No.6 could amend her written statement to resile from admissions made in her earlier written statement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeal and ruling that the amendment sought by respondent No.6 was impermissible as it attempted to negate prior admissions.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- admissions in pleadings
- resiling from admissions
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
