ONKAR Vs. VASHNO PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY the facts in these two Revision Petitions Nos. 3284 and 3285 of 1982 are identical and thus these are being disposed of together. These are directed against two separate but similar orders in favour of the same defendant -respondent whereby he has been allowed to amend the written statements. The Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that for purposes of this order only the facts stated in the first petition need be adverted to.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the Respondent had taken on rent the land in question demarcated in the site plan as 'ABCDEF' from one Biru Ram at a yearly rent of Rs. 204/ - with effect from March 22, 1962. Later this Biru Ram sold this land in two parcels through two different sale deeds in favour of Ashok Kumar and Onkar Chand, the two Petitioners respectively. It is the conceded position that prior to these sales, the Respondent tenant had constructed two shops on the rented land and the area underneath each one of these has been purchased by the two Petitioners. In reply to the application filed by Onkar Petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, the Act), the Respondent pleaded "not denied" to the material averment that "the Petitioner is a land owner/landlord of the rented land in dispute and the respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 17/ - under the Petitioner" During the course of trial the Respondent made an application for the amendment of his reply and thereby to add to the same as follows:

(3.) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I find that there is no merit in this submission of the Learned Counsel. It is the settled law and has rather been recently reiterated by the final Court in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km Jyoti Sahay : A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 462 that though an admission is a very material piece of evidence against a party making the same, yet the maker of it can always prove it to be wrong and even withdraw the same. Further it is patent from the contents of the application made by the Respondent for seeking this amendment that he does not want to withdraw from or substitute any part of the written statement already filed by him. He only wants to add to it. This addition sought to be made, to me appeals to be explanatory in nature. I thus see no justification to interfere with the impugned order; more so when the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner himself has no objection to the amendment as stated at No. (ii)