GURVINDER SINGH Vs. RUPINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff. He has filed a suit for declaration of title on the basis of Will dtd. 17/12/2016 allegedly executed by his late father-Bhupinder Singh. Late Bhupinder Singh is survived by his widow-Kulwant Kaur and two daughters, Rupinder Kaur and Manpreet Kaur. Kulwant Kaur filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2-Manpreet Kaur got her statement recorded in Court on 22/10/2018 stating that she adopts the written statement filed by Kulwant Kaur. Thereafter, the plaintiff's oral evidence has been concluded on 18/7/2019. The widow-Kulwant Kaur and Manpreet Kaur were proceeded ex parte on 9/10/2019. On 14/1/2020, Manpreet Kaur (second defendant) filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order dtd. 9/10/2019 and for amendment of the written statement. The ex parte order was recalled vide order dtd. 16/9/2021, but permission to amend the written statement was declined. Thereafter, on 15/11/2021, an application was filed for replacing the earlier written statement inter alia on the ground that the counsel-Sh. Davinderpal Singh had never been engaged by the applicant and that he had never been instructed by her to make a statement on 22/10/2018. The plaintiff had played a fraud on the applicant.

(2.) This application has been allowed vide order dtd. 9/12/2021 subject to certain conditions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once, an admission had been made, it cannot be withdrawn. Further, permission to amend the petition having been refused, the Court could not have permitted substitution of the earlier written statement. Reliance is placed upon S. Malla Reddy Vs. M/s Future Builders Cooperative Housing Society and others 2013 (2) RCR (civil) 957. Passing of impugned order would result in de novo trial which would be detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff.