RAM RISHPAL Vs. SANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy here is with regard to the filing of an amended written statement by the defendant. The objection to it being that the defendant was thereby seeking to wriggle out of the admissions made in the written statement. This, it was said, was unjust and prejudicial to the plaintiff.

(2.) The written statement filed by the defendant in a suit for injunction to restrain him from encroaching upon the land in dispute, contained the averment that the land was a chowk which was shar-e-am over which no one had any right. It was denied that the defendant had any intention to make any encroachment thereon. It was also said that it was the wife of the defendant who was the owner of the alleged site. These admissions now stand withdrawn by the amended written statement. The stand taken there being that the disputed land was in the exclusive possession and ownership of the defendant and that it was neither part of a chowk nor was it shar-e-am over which no one had any exclusive right. Further, that it was the defendant and not his wife who was the owner of the site in question.

(3.) The trial Court found that the defendant was indeed withdrawing his prior admissions and also taking up a new plea, but allowed the amendment prayed for in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another, 1983 AIR(SC) 462In this case, the plaintiff had described himself as an uterine brother, but subsequently sought to drop the word "uterine" by amendment of the plaint. This amendment was allowed by the trial Court but the High Court overruled this order. The Supreme Court held that there was no justification for the High Court to have interfered with the order of the trial Court granting permission to the plaintiff to amend the plaint observing that an admission by a party may be withdrawn or explained away and it could not, therefore, be said that an admission of fact could not be withdrawn by amendment of the pleadings. It was on this observation that Mr. O.P. Sharma, counsel for the defendant, sought to support the impugned order of the trial Court.