SHAM LAL Vs. CHAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated January 29, 1989, whereby the amendment of the written statement was allowed on payment of ? 200/- as costs.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for the recovery of ? 39,000/- on the basis of a pronote and the receipt, dated July 15, 1983. In the written statement filed earlier, the plea taken by the defendant was that his alleged thumb-impression was obtained on the pronote and the receipt forcibly by calling him to the Police Station. He was called to Police Station Dirba at the instance of the plaintiff and there, his thumb-impression was obtained forcibly by giving him beating. Later on, the documents were converted into the pronote and the receipt. Now, by virtue of the application for amendment of the written statement he wanted to withdraw that admission on the plea that in the opinion of two experts, the thumb-impression does not tally with the defendant's thumb-impression and, therefore, he being an illiterate person, be allowed to withdraw the same alleging that his thumb-impression was obtained forcibly in the Police Station. The application was resisted on behalf of the plaintiff primarily on the ground that the defendant could not be allowed to withdraw the admission made in the written statement and that too at' a very belated stage when the case was fixed for arguments. The learned trial Court found :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the trial Court in this behalf was wrong and illegal and, thus, it has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, once an admission was made, the same could not be allowed to be withdrawn subsequently.