The court emphasized the importance of keeping intact the admissions made in the original written statement while allowing amendments to the written statements.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By order dated 2nd December, 2015, an application, being I.A. No.4929/2015, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant No.2 Mrs.Raj Puri was partly allowed. The relevant paras 25 and 27 read as under:

“25. As far as the admissions made on behalf of defendant No.2 by filing of joint original written statement are concerned, the same cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. The same have to be intact. However, the party cannot be refused to raise new grounds of defence or substitution of a new ground of the defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement while considering the application for amendment and the parties raising the same has to prove it in evidence as per law. It is settled law that while considering the application for amendment, merit cannot be gone into.

27. The defendant No.2, under these circumstances, is not allowed to withdraw the said admissions already made in the original written statement. The same would be kept intact, however, the application for amendment is disposed of to the extent of allowing defendant No.2 to raise the alternative pleas in the amended written statement. The said proposed pleas raised by defendant No.2, however, have to be proved as per law in evidence. The Court is not expressing any opinion on the evidence filed in support of grounds of additional plea in the amendment application on merit.’’

2. The said order was challenged by Mr.Vinod Puri, the defendant No.3 in the present suit, before the Division Bench in appeal, being FAO (OS) 11/2016. The said appeal was disposed of with the following direction:

“Thereafter, we are remitting this matter to the learned Single Judge to specifically point out as to which portions of the proposed amendments have been allowed and which portions have not been allowed. We are, consequently, disposing of this appeal and direct that the matter be placed before the learned Single Judge who had delivered the said judgment in the first instance on 22.01.2016.

The learned Single Judge shall clearly indicate as to which portions of the proposed amendments have been allowed and which portions have not been allowed. On such clarification being obtained, it would be open to the parties to file an appeal if they are aggrieved therefrom including the grounds which have been taken by the appellant in the present appeal.”

3. Pursuant to order passed by the Division Bench, the defendant No.3 had handed over a chart to the Court on 22nd January, 2016 in order to identify the admissions made by the defendant No.1. It appears that subsequently, defendants No.4 and 5 also filed their respective applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to seek amendments in their respective written statements. At one stage, the matter was also sent to the Mediation Centre for settlement.

4. As far as fresh applications filed by the defendants No.4 and 5 are concerned, I am not inclined to decide the same. I am only inclined to deal with the original application i.e. I.A. No.4929/2012 in view of the order passed by the Division Bench. Rest of the applications will be considered by the Roster Bench.

5. Mr. G.L. Rawal, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant No.2, has made his submissions.

6. Even the defendant No.3 has filed a fresh application, being I.A. No.11311/2016 under Section 151 CPC, praying therein not to take on record the draft amended written statement dated 17th May, 2016 being in contravention of order dated 12th January, 2016 passed by the Division Bench. Counsel for the defendant No.3 stated that the amendments be allowed in original written statement filed by the defendant No.2 in accordance with order dated 12th January, 2016 and not otherwise.

7. As far as the submission of defendant No.3 in this regard is concerned, the arguments of the learned counsel for the contested defendant No.3 is that the applicant/defendant No.2 contrary to the earlier order passed has withdrawn all admission, made in the ori