VIDYA WANTI Vs. GOPI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vidya Wanti, petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration that she is the owner in possession of the house in question. Her allegation for seeking declaration seems to be that the house in dispute fell to her share in a family settlement and, therefore, she was owner in possession thereof. Defendant 1 is the husband of the plaintiff whereas other defendants are the brothers of defendants 1 or the widow, sons and the daughters of the pre-deceased brother of defendant-1. Defendants 2 to 11 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Some or all the defendants also made statements before the trial Court which were reduced into writing and are signed by them admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Somehow or the other, the suit remained pending. During this period all the defendants except defendant 1 moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the written statement and for withdrawal of the written statement already filed.

(2.) Trial Court on a consideration of the matter and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties refused to allow defendants 2 to 11 to withdraw the written statement but granted them the permission to amend the written statement, by order dated 18.3.1992. Hence this revision at the instance of the plaintiff.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Atam Parkash Sharma, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 28 submitted that the defendants had admitted the claim of the plaintiff not only by filing written statement in that behalf but also by making statements duly signed before the trial Court. Once the defendants had admitted the claim, the suit ought to have been decreed and the trial court acted illegally and with material irregularity in permitting defendants 2 to 11 to file the amended written statement and thereby permitting them to withdraw an admission already made.