RANJIT KAUR Vs. G S SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal assails that part of the Order dated 18. 4. 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in which IA No. 5945/2002 filed by Defendant No. 1 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 had been allowed. There can be no cavil that amendments, especially to Written Statements, must be liberally allowed. One of the exceptions is that the admission contained in the Written Statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn, although the Supreme Court has recognized reservations and limitations even to this principle. In a recent decision their Lordships, while taking into account various decisions of Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Jain vs- Manoj kumar, 2009 (7) Scale 103, have held thus:-

(2.) THE Defendant is usually permitted to adduce facts which are relevant to the decision and which may have not been pleaded earlier, since the delay which may result in adjudicating such applications would normally be duly compensated by awarding costs. It is this principle which persuades us to agree with the reasoning and dialectic of the learned Single Judge in the impugned Order. In allowing the application of Defendant no. 1 to amend his Written Statement, no admission made by him can, by any stretch of imagination, be seen to have been permitted to be withdrawn. The pleadings in the original written Statement have only been added to. The Appellant is arrayed as Defendant No. 3 in the Plaint and the pleadings relevant to her, inter alia, are as follows:-

(3.) IN this regard, the amendments affecting the rights of defendant No. 3/appellant are in the form of paragraph 3 (b) and 9 (b) to the Preliminary Submissions which are in these words:-3 (b) The Defendant No. 1 submits that if for any reason, the Will dated 4. 3. 1992 propounded by the Plaintiff is held to be valid, and it is held that shri Gurpuran Singh had the right to execute the Will in respect of the properties in suit ; though this fact is not conceded by Defendant No. 1, in that event also, it is submitted that by the Will dated 4. 3. 1992, the Will dated 29. 1. 1982 stood revoked and Defendant No. 3 was not entitled to the properties bearing Khasra Nos. 72/4919, 4929, 4930, 5038, 5039, 5040, 5041, 5042, 5043, 5044, 5045, 5046, 5047 and 5048 situated in village Banur Punjab and the properties bequeathed by Will dated 29. 1. 1982 are also liable to be partitioned amongst the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 4. 9 (b) The Defendant No. 1 submits that if for any reason, the Will dated 4. 3. 1992 propounded by the Plaintiff is held to be valid, and it is held that shri Gurpuran Singh had the right to execute the Will in respect of the properties in suit ; though this fact is not conceded by Defendant No. 1, in that event also, it is submitted that by the Will dated 4. 3. 1992, the Will dated 29. 1. 1982 stood revoked and Defendant No. 3 was not entitled to the properties bearing Khasra Nos. 72/4919, 4929, 4930, 5038, 5039, 5040, 5041, 5042, 5043, 5044, 5045, 5046, 5047 and 5048 situated in Village Banur Punjab and the properties bequeathed by Will dated 29. 1. 1982 are also liable to be partitioned amongst the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 4. It will be noticed that these paragraphs are verbatim identical to each other.