Amarjeet vs Kulwant Ram

Sat Pal, J. (Oral)

This petition has been directed against the order dated 22.3.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application filed by defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) for amendment of the written statement. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

Mr. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the original written statement, defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) has clearly admitted the claim of the plaintiff and he has even made statement in support of that assertion before the learned trial Court on 20.5.1994 and said defendant No. 1 was identified by the Lambardar of the area before the learned trial Court. He, therefore, contends that defendant No. 1 should not be permitted to withdraw admission made by him in the written statement as well as before the learned trial court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and others, 1998(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 140 : AIR 1998 Supreme Court 618. Mr. K.C. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that defendant No. 1 while signing the written statement was not aware of the contents which have been inserted later on and in fact he had put his thumb impressions on blank paper.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained legally. In the present case it is not only that defendant No. 1 had thumb marked the written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff but he had also given his statement before the learned trial Court and in that statement he has clearly admitted the claim of the plaintiff. In view of these facts, defendant No. 1 cannot be allowed to withdraw admission made by him not only in the written statement but also before the learned trial Court. The view taken by me finds full support from the case of Heeralal (supra).

In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and impugned order dated 22.3.1997 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 1 herein) under Order 6 rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement stands dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observation made herein above shall have to bearing on the merit of the case.