SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Cal) 247

High Court of Calcutta
N.K. Mitra, J.
Bhowanipore Gujarati Education Society – Appellant
Versus
State of W.B. – Respondent
Decided On: May 14, 1993

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Kashinath De, U.S. Menon.

An admission made in a written statement can be withdrawn by amendment, if sufficient cause is shown.

Headnote:

AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - ADMISSION - WITHDRAWAL - CONDITIONS - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 6, RULE 17.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioners claiming that they were working as "laboratory assistants" and that the decision of the petitioners to demote them to "laboratory attendants" was illegal. The petitioners filed a written statement admitting the plaintiffs' allegations but later sought to amend the written statement to clarify that the plaintiffs were appointed as "laboratory attendants" and not "laboratory assistants". The trial court rejected the application for amendment, holding that it would change the front of the defense and that the plaintiffs would be prejudiced.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the proposed amendment was not an attempt to withdraw any admission made by the petitioners in their written statement, but merely sought to clarify the status of the plaintiffs. The court also held that the petitioners had given sufficient explanation for seeking to withdraw the admission and that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by the amendment. Accordingly, the court allowed the amendment of the written statement.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners could be allowed to amend their written statement to withdraw an admission made therein. 2. Whether the amendment would change the front of the defense and prejudice the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An admission made in a written statement can be withdrawn by amendment, if sufficient cause is shown. 2. However, when the effect of amendment is to wipe off an admission made in the original pleading and is mala fide, such amendment cannot be allowed. 3. Amendment seeking to introduce a new case, and to make out a new claim, and to negative admission already made in the written statement, cannot be allowed. 4. Amendment of written statement stands on a different footing from that of a plaint. 5. Amendment to clarify certain points in the original written statement is permissible.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioners' application for amendment of the written statement.

JUDGMENT

1. THE opposite parties field Title Suit No. 284 of 1976 in the 4th Court of the learned munsif at Alipore against the petitioner, subsequently re-numbered on transfer to the 3rd additional munsif at Alipore as Title Suit No. 86 of 1984, claiming for the following reliefs :-

"(a) A decree declaring that the plaintiffs have been and are Class iii employees;

(b) A decree declaring that the decision caused by the defendants declaring the plaintiffs as Class- IV staff is illegal, improper, in valid and inoperative and must be set aside;

(c) Ad-interim, temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 and 3 from giving further effect to the decision dated 3. 10. 75 for demotion of the plaintiffs to Class- IV;

(d) Mandatory injunction directing status-quo ante, before the date of taking decision for demotion namely;

(e) Costs;

(f) Such other and further relief/reliefs as the plaintiffs may be found entitled to."

2. THE opposite parties, in paragraph 1 of the plaint, which is quoted below, had stated inter alia, that they were working as "laboratory assistants" under the defendant No. 1 in the suit.

"1. That the plaintiffs who are all moderately educated (Higher secondary Passed or with higher educational achievements) were recruited and appointed by the defendant No. 1 for technical jobs in the Science Laboratory of the Collee under the defendant No. 1, on a different dates in the capacity of Laboratory Assistants to help the students in the laboratory work. "

The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 namely, the petitioners, contested the suit by filing their joint written statement denying and disputing the allegations made in the Plaint. In paragraph 8 of the written statement it was stated inter alia that the statements contained in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Plaints were substantially correct. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the written statement wherein it was stated inter alia, that the plaintiffs/opposite parties were appointed as "laboratory Attendants" and not "laboratory Assistants" as alleged in the plaint, and due to oversight, such fact was not incorporated in the written statement, and prayed for addition of the following sentence in paragraph 8 of the written statement:-The plaintiffs were appointed as laboratory attendants" and not "laboratory assistants" as stated". The said application although was opposed by the opposite parties, was ultimately allowed by the learned munsif on 27. 8. 84, against which, the opposite parties moved a revisional application in this Hon'ble Court, upon which, a Rule being C. R. No. 3224 of 1984 was issued, which was ultimately made absolute by Mohitosh Majumder, J. on 29th August, 1991 inter alia, with the observations that the aforesaid application for amendment should be heard do novo by the trial court. Thereafter, the learned munsif by his orders No. 120 and 127 dated 4. 8. 92 respectively, rejected the petitioner's said application for amendment, holding inter alia, that an amendment, which is a direct negation- of a party's own admission in pleading, cannot be allowed and relied upon a decision of the Delhi high Court in AIR 1987 Delhi 177, to hold that a written statement cannot toe amended to withdraw admission made therein. The teamed munsif further held that the whole case based on the ground that the plaintiffs were "laboratory Assistants" and if the defendants were allowed to amend tike written statement as prayed for, 'then the proposed amendment would do injustice to the plaintiff. The said two orders are the subject matters of challenge in the present revisional application.

It is contended inter alia, by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the amendment as sought for. should have been allowed by like learned munsif instead of rejecting the same, inasmuch as, the imposed amendment if allowed, would not change the front of the defence of the defendants/in any way, nor it would amount to withdrawal of any alle










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top