An admission, express or implied, cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment. The Court may insist on the plaintiff to prove a fact notwithstanding an implied admission. The Court may allow amendment after the trial has commenced only in exceptional circumstances.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Whether an admission made by a defendant, in his written statement, can be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment? Is there, in the matter of permitting such amendment of a written statement, any difference between an 'express admission' and an 'implied admission'? Can a lawyer's incorrect instructions, omission or failure leading to the making of an implied or express admission, in a written statement, be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment and if not, what is the remedy for a defendant, whose written statement contains, on account of incorrect instructions, failure or omission of his counsel, an admission, either express or implied? Is there any remedy available at all to a defendant if an admission, implied or express is made by him in a written statement, following incorrect instructions, omissions or failure on the part of his counsel and if so, what is the remedy? Should this Court interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court disallowing the defendant's prayer for amendment of his written statement? These are some of the prominent questions, which have arisen for determination in the present writ petition.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner, and Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents.

3. The material facts and various stages, which have led to the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as follows:

The plaintiff-defendants instituted Title Suit No. 171/96, on 9-10-1996, seeking, inter alia, decree for ejectment of the defendant from suit premises and for arrear of rents on the grounds that the defendant was a defaulter and that the suit premises were bona fide required by the plaintiffs for their own use and occupation. Paragraphs 3 and 15 to 19 of the plaint read as follows:

3. That as per agreement the rent was fixed at Rs. 1,650/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred fifty) only per month payable within 7 days of the succeeding months. It was agreed that the tenancy will commence on and from 1-6-1992 and will be according to English Calender month.

15. That the plaintiffs in view of the facts stated above urgently require the suit premises not only for meeting their present requirement but also for expansion of their business.

16. That on several request and defence made by the plaintiffs for handing over the possession of the suit premises the defendant assured the plaintiffs to vacate the premises but he failed to do the same and also stopped payment of rent and lastly on 2-10-1996 the plaintiffs again requested to vacate the premises but the defendant turned a deaf ear and neither paid the arrear amount nor vacated the suit premises and hand over possession to the plaintiffs. So the plaintiffs are compelled to file this present suit for ejectment and for arrear rent.

17. That the defendant has not paid the rent since May, 1996 and so the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the arrear rent and so they claim Rs. 9,900/- on account of arrear rent from May, 1996 to September, 1996 (both months inclusive.

18. That the cause of action for the suit arose on 7-6-1996 when the defendant failed to make payment of the rent for the month of May, 1996. Cause of action also arose on every 7th day of every subsequent month when the defendant failed to make payments of the rent for the suit premises. Cause of action also arose on 2-10-1996 when the plaintiffs lastly requested to vacate the premises and defendant failed to do the same. The cause of action arose at Fancy Bazar, Guwahati and so this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

19. That the suit is valued at Rs. 33,660/-for purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee is paid on Rs. 23,760/- (being one year's rent) and Rs. 9,900/- (being arrear rent) separately.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement on 1,09,1997, where he did not specifically deny the statements made by the plaintiffs in paragraphs 3