KHUSHI LAL Vs. RAMCHAND MOTWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has assailed the order dated 23-10-2003 by which the Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Original Suit No. 3-A/2003 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the petitioner engaged Shri Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate who filed written statement on behalf of the petitioner on 18-6-2003. It is stated that in the aforesaid written statement, petitioner made various admissions of the plaint. It is also alleged that aforesaid written statement was got prepared by plaintiff through his Counsel of Indore and the facts stated in the written statement were not in the knowledge of the petitioner and without knowledge and consent, the written statement was got signed by the Counsel. Immediately on knowledge on 20th June, 2003, petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court for rejection of the written statement. As there was no provision in this regard, so the prayer was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking various amendments in the written statement. This application was contested by the plaintiff on the ground that by change of Advocate, the petitioner can not withdraw the admissions. The Trial Court considering the contention of the parties and facts of the case, rejected the application on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner is withdrawing various admissions, and has made averments supporting the case of defendant No. 3. Aggrieved by the order, petitioner filed this petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that respondent Ramchand Motwani filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner. This suit was filed on 25-3-2003. Before filing of the suit, the petitioner alienated the property in favour of respondent Rakesh Yadav on 6-11-2000. This event occurred prior to filing of the suit. The petitioner being an agriculturist was deceived by the plaintiff and the written statement prepared by the plaintiff was filed before the Trial Court. On knowing the facts stated in the written statement, the petitioner immediately on 20th June, 2003 filed an application for rejection of the written statement. This fact shows that the plaintiff played fraud and immediately on knowing the fact, the application was filed by the petitioner. Though the application for rejection of the written statement was rejected, but subsequently on 1-9-2003, petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement. The circumstances were explained by the petitioner in which the aforesaid admission was sought to be withdrawn. He submits that the admission may be explained or withdrawn by the petitioner, which is permissible under the law. The petitioner has explained the circumstances in which the alleged admissions were made. It is not a case in which the admission has been sought to be withdrawn after a lapse of sufficient time but immediately within a period of 2 days, the petitioner moved such application showing that fraud was played with the petitioner and on rejection of the first application dated 20th June, 2003, another application was filed by the petitioner which has wrongly been rejected by the Trial Court. He has placed reliance on Single Bench judgment in the case of Harbans Lal v. Dev Raj and Ors. , 2003 AIHC 3277. In Paras 6 and 8 of the judgment, it is held :