PUNAM CHAND BOARD Vs. MANGIIAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 25.3.2000, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") to permit him to amend the written statement, has been rejected on the ground that by amendment, he was withdrawing the admission and it would displace non-petitioner/ plaintiff's case.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the plaintiff/non-peti-tioner filed a suit for partition and other reliefs on 5.10.99 and petitioner-defendant filed written statement on 12.11.99. Rejoinder affidavit was filed on 13.2.99 and on the basis of said pleadings, issues were framed on 15.12.99. The case was fixed on 15.3.2000 for recording evidence of the plaintiff/non-petitioner, however, on that date, petitioner-defendant filed an application under O 6 R 17 of the Cede for amending the contents of paragraph No 2 in the written statement denying the right of share of plaintiff/non-petitioner in the suit property, which has been rejected vide impugned order Hence this revision

(3.) It :s settled proposition of law that ad mission is the best evidence unless the party who has admitted it proves it to have been admitted under a wrong presumption or it could not have been otherwise factually correct In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosaui Balaji wale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosaui & Ors ', the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under -