KANHAIYA LAL Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order of the Trial Court rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant.

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant for ejectment. In the written statement, the defendant had admitted that the plaintiffs were the landlords. By amendment what was sought to be added in the written statement was that the building was purchased by the plaintiff's father Sri Ram Saran Das, who on his death was survived also by his daughters, for example, Smt. Rajoo, Smt. Maya and Smt. Vimla, who are alive and it was also said that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the daughters and consequently the suit was not legally maintainable and the plaintiffs alone were not entitled to sue. The effect of the amendment would be that the defendant would be allowed to resile from his admission that the plaintiffs were the sole owners. This cannot be permitted. Similar situation had arisen in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8803 of 1986, Daulat Ram Vs. IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and another, decided on 23-8-1986 . The learned Single Judge has held that such an amendment cannot be permitted.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that a party can withdraw an admission and in this connection relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Panchdeo Narian Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 SC 462 . In an earlier larger bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co., AIR 1977 SC 680 , it was held that the:-