TILAK RAJ MAHAJAN Vs. RATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Tilak Raj Mahajan directed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, IInd Class, Amritsar, dated 5.12.1995. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the written statement.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondent Rattan Chand is the brother of petitioner. He filed a civil suit for declaration that the Will dated 18.11.1977 purported to have been executed by Smt. Lajwanti is illegal and is the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The Petitioner filed written statement and contested the suit. He alleged that Smt. Lajwanti had executed a registered will in his favour and that he was the owner of the property. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, however, it was mentioned that Anant Ram, husband of Smt. Lajwanti, was the owner of the property in dispute. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement to plead that the admission made in paragraph 1 of the written statement is by mistake. It is against the contents of registered conveyance deed and may be allowed to be withdrawn. The conveyance deed in favour of Smt. Lajwanti was produced in evidence. The learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that the admission made cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) It is obvious from the resume of the facts given above that the controversy in the present case revolves around as to if in the facts of the present case admission made that Anant Ram was the owner of the property can be allowed to be withdrawn or not Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which holds the key to the question in controversy reads as under :-