HARWINDER SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in revision petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby the defendant-respondent was permitted to amend the written statement filed by his mother Mukhtiar Kaur.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of l/3rd share of suit land against his mother. Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff but before the Court could pass a decree on the basis of such admission, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur died. The respondent herein is his son impleaded as her legal representative who filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawing the admission written statement filed on behalf of Mukhtiar Kaur alleging therein that the plaintiff has manipulated admission of defendant fraudulently and against the interest of Mukhtiar Kaur. It was also alleged that Mukhtiar Kaur could not make this admission and such admission was wrong, erroneous and against the interest of the maker. Such application for amendment has been allowed by the learned trial Court which order is being challenged by the petitioner by way of present revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that by virtue of the amendment the defendant has sought to withdraw the admission made by his mother Mukhtiar Kaur in the written statement. The legal representatives of Mukhtiar Kaur i.e. the respondents herein, cannot be permitted to withdraw admission in the present suit. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Atam Parkash Sharma, (1994-3)108 Punjab Law Reporter 28 and Jagga Singh v. Harpal Singh, (1995-1)109 Punjab Law Reporter 763 to contend that the admission made in the written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn.