LAWS(DLH)-1984-7-8

CHAND KRISHAN BHALLA Vs. SURINDER SINGH

Decided On July 26, 1984
CHAND KRISHAN BHALLA Appellant
V/S
SURINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It has been observed again and again by the Supreme Court that the court should be liberal in allowing application for leave to amend the pleadings in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 S.C. 1267 following observation has been made :

(2.) M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484 following observation has been made :

(3.) In Panchdeo Narain Srivastava, AIR 1983 SC 462, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to withdraw a certain amount deposited by the second defendant in the court. The plaintiff had described himself as the son of uterine brother of Ram Shanker Prasad subsequently the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint seeking deletion of the word "Uterine" from the plaint. The trial court allowed the amendment. The High Court reversed the order of the trial court and dismissed the application for leave to amend the plaint. The Supreme Court observed that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away and therefore it cannot be said that by amendment an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. In Chetanlal Jain (supra), this Supreme Court authority the latest pronouncement was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. The trial court in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court was not bound to follow the judgment of this court. On a careful reading of the Supreme Court judgment I am of the opinion that if by inadvertance alleged admission has been made in the pleadings and the explanation is given by the party concerned he can be allowed to amend the pleadings.