PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. SAJJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenges order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rupnagar dismissing an application of the defendant-petitioner to amend her written statement. In the earlier written statement filed by her, she has accepted the legality of power of attorney dated 26.8.1992 and has claimed that the sale-deed executed on the basis of power of attorney was valid. On that it was also claimed that the subsequent sale-deed executed by her vendee in favour of a third party was also valid.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that power of attorney dated 26.8.1992 executed by one Kewal Singh in favour of the defendant-petitioner and the sale-deeds on the basis of aforementioned power of attorney, were null and void. It was also alleged that the sale-deeds and power of attorney were result of fraud and misrepresentation. In the written statement the defendant-petitioner took the stand that the power of attorney was valid and the sale-deed executed by her was also valid. The aforementioned stand is sought to be withdrawn by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') with the assertion that the power of attorney was illegal and subsequent sale-deed executed by her vendee was also illegal.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and perusing the impugned order, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. It is well settled principle of law concerning amendment of pleadings that mutual destructive pleas cannot be incorporated by seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. It is equally well settled that admission made cannot be withdrawn by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. The Supreme Court after analysing numerous judgments on the issue has recorded the principles with regard to amendments in the case of B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and another, (2000)1 SCC 712. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under :-