CHIEF MANAGER, GAIL INDIA Vs. FERAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

(2.) Challenge is to an order dated 03.05.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.112A/2013; whereby, the trial Court has dismissed the application for consequential amendment in the written statement on the findings that if the application is allowed the same would lead to permitting the defendant from retracting the admission in the written statement.

(3.) The suit at the instance of the respondent No.1-plaintiff is for declaration, possession, mesne profit and for permanent injunction in respect of the land ad-measuring 0.46 hectare of Survey No.231 Min. 1 situated at Village Rithoryan, Tahsil Kolaras. Contending inter-alia that out of 1.10 hectare of said survey numbers the plaintiff sold 0.64 hectare to the defendant (present petitioner) vide sale-deed dated 07.12.2009 which led to division of Survey No.231 Min.3. That on remaining 0.46 hectare as the defendant resorted to construct boundary wall allegedly over the land bearing Survey No.231 Min 1 ad-measuring 0.46 hectare, led the plaintiff file the suit, seeking declaration of title, possession, mesne profit. Later, the plaintiff sought the leave to challenge the sale-deed dated 25.01.2005 registered on 26.11.2005. The amendment was allowed. The defendant while seeking consequential amendment in the written statement sought to withdraw the following admission made in paragraphs 2, 5,7, 8, 9, 17, viz, [xxx xxx xxx] The trial Court declined the application on the findings that the defendant cannot be allowed to withdraw the admission. The trial Court observed: