2013 Supreme(Raj) 1348
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Atma Ram - Appellant
Versus
Banwari Lal & Ors - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6025 of 2013.
Decided On : 24-05-2013
Advocates:
For the Appellant:R. Bhatnagar, Advocate.
A party cannot resile from a judicial admission made in a verified written statement by seeking an amendment to the statement.
Headnote:
AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - ORDER 6, RULE 17 C.P.C. - REJECTION OF APPLICATION - ADMISSION OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE - RESILING FROM ADMISSION - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - NO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT - COURT'S DISCRETION - LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the rejection of his application to amend his written statement in a suit for specific performance of contract. He admitted executing an agreement to sell a plot to the respondents but later claimed it was a mistake and sought to amend his statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's admission of executing the agreement in his verified written statement was credible and that his subsequent attempt to resile from it was not permissible. It also noted the delay in filing the amendment application and the absence of an affidavit in support.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner could amend his written statement to deny executing the agreement to sell the plot. 2. Whether the court erred in rejecting the amendment application due to delay and lack of an affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's admission of executing the agreement in his written statement was a judicial admission that could not be resiled from. 2. The court found that the petitioner's application for amendment was filed with a delay and without an affidavit, which supported the trial court's decision to reject it.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's rejection of the petitioner's application to amend his written statement.
JUDGMENT
1. - This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6.4.2013 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the written statement has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 preferred a suit for specific performance of contract dated 9.2.2011 against the petitioner-defendant while claiming that the petitioner executed an agreement to sale of a plot in question situated in Ward No. 11 Anoopgarh measuring 500 square yard on 9.2.2011 for an amount of Rs. 20 and lakhs out of which the petitioner has received Rs. 5 lakhs as advance and has agreed that the registry of the said plot will be executed on 10.3.2011 and the possession of the plot would be handed over at that time after receiving the remaining amount of Rs. 15 lakhs. It is claimed by the respondents that though they were ready and willing to perform their part of action on 10.3.2011 but the petitioner did not perform his part of action and refused to get the registry of the plot in question on 22.7.2012 and, therefore, a decree for specific performance of contract be issued in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. A written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the petitioner admitted the execution of agreement to sale dated 9.2.2011.
3. The petitioner thereafter preferred an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. and has claimed that in the written statement, the applicant has wrongly admitted the execution of the agreement to sale with one of the plaintiff Jugal Kishore and the same has been done on account of mistake, therefore, he will be allowed to amend his written statement to this effect. The respondents have contested the application preferred by the petitioner for amending written statement while claiming that in the written statement, the petitioner has specifically admitted execution of the agreement to sale by him in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs and now he wants to resile from the said statement which cannot be permitted at this stage when the trial had already been commenced.
4. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the application for amending the written statement, the reply of the respondents and after hearing the parties concerned rejected the application preferred by the petitioner while observing that the statement of the petitioner that he has not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff jugal Kishore for the sale of the plot in question vide agreement to sale dated 9.2.2011 is not believable as the petitioner has filed the written statement after availing more than one opportunity and the said written statement has also been verified by the petitioner. It is also observed by the learned trial Court that it is not believable that the petitioner has executed the agreement to sale in favour of an un-known person and has also received an amount on behalf of the said unknown person. The trial Court has observed that in the suit the issues have been framed on 2.4.2012 and the evidence of the plaintiff has also been produced and the trial of the case has already been commenced and the petitioner has filed this application with a great delay and the application is also not supported by any affidavit and, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to amend his written statement.
5. The learned trial Court, therefore, rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for amending the written statement vide order dated 6.4.2013 against which the petitioner has preferred this wit petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial Court has illegally rejected his application for amending the written statement while observing that there is a delay in filing the application for amending the written statement. i
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
