Admission Made In Written Statement Cannot Be Withdrawn By Way Of Amendment Application Made Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that admissions made in written statements cannot be withdrawn by an amendment even in the case of a typographical error or a change in arguing counsel.Opposite party filed a case in the small causes court in which the revisionists had filed a written statement on 05.02.2014. Thereafter, it was found that due to a typographical error, the documents...
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that admissions made in written statements cannot be withdrawn by an amendment even in the case of a typographical error or a change in arguing counsel.
Opposite party filed a case in the small causes court in which the revisionists had filed a written statement on 05.02.2014. Thereafter, it was found that due to a typographical error, the documents annexed with the written statement contained the word 'tenant' rather than the phrase 'license deed'.
After a change in counsel, the revisionist preferred an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to replace the word 'tenant' with the word 'lincensee'. However, the same was rejected on the ground that any admission made in a written statement cannot be withdrawn. It was also held that a change in counsel was not a sufficient reason to entitle the revisionist to an amendment at a belated stage and that the condition of due diligence had not been fulfilled.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that as per the Supreme Court in in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr, a liberal view was to be taken while deciding an amendment application.
Per contra, counsel for the opposite party contended that once any admission was made in a written statement, it could not be withdrawn. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Niranjan Kajaria and Ors. v. Jugal Kishore Kajaria wherein it was held that a categorical admission made in the pleadings could not be withdrawn by way of an amendment application.
Further, it was submitted that even in case of typographical errors in the written statement, admission could not be withdrawn, Lastly, it was contended that as per the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Rama Nand and Ors. v. Amrit Lala and Ors., a withdrawal could not be made on the strength of a change in counsel at a belated stage.
The Court held that facts of the case such as the date of filing of suit, written statement and amendment application were not under dispute. Taking into account the decisions of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation and Ram Niranjan Kajaria, the Court held that contrary to the contentions of the revisionist, expressions made in the pleadings could not be withdrawn by way of an amendment application.
“We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment,” held the Apex Court in Ram Niranjan Kajaria.
Justice Tiwari held that a typographical error was not grounds enough for the withdrawal of a written statement.
Regarding the change of counsel, the Court held that as per the decision in Hari Shankar and 5 Ors. v. Bhawati Prasad Mishra, Shri Firoz Uddin and 4 Ors. v. Shri Anwar Uddin and Rama Nand and Ors. v. Amrit Lala and Ors, a change of counsel could also not be a ground to file an amendment application, circumventing the strict conditions of due diligence.
“So far as the present case is concerned, there is no dispute on the point that except the engagement of new counsel, nothing has been stated in amendment application even after sincere efforts, they could not search out the fact, which is to be amended in written statement. Therefore, the condition of due diligence could not be satisfied. Law is very much settled that change of counsel cannot be a ground for filing amendment,” held the Apex Court in Shri Firoz Uddin.
Accordingly, the revision was dismissed.
Case Title: Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Rama Raman and 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 377 [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 38 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 377