Admissions in prior suits can be used as evidence in subsequent cases, and courts have inherent powers to reopen evidence for the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout and the impugned order dated 15.09.2018 (Ann.8) passed by the Additional Sr. Civil Judge No.2, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh in Civil Suit No.32/2018 (35/2011) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1(A), 3(A) read with Section 151 CPC dated 10.01.2018 may kindly be ordered to be allowed."

3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the plaintiff/non-petitioner had filed a suit for ejectment of the shop and for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,643/- against the defendant/petitioner. The defendant petitioner took a plea that he is not the tenant of the plaintiff/non-petitioner, and thus, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff/non-petitioner and the defendant/petitioner, which could justify continuance of the suit.

Thereafter, the defendant/petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rules 1(A), 3(A) read with Section 151 CPC before the learned court below on 09.10.2017 seeking production of the statement dated 11.09.2017 of the plaintiff/non-petitioner regarding admission made in another suit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforementioned statement dated 11.09.2017 was not in existence earlier, and therefore, the defendant/petitioner was well justified in seeking to bring the same on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basant Singh v. Janki Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 1967 SC 341 (V 54 C 63), particularly para 5 thereof, which reads as under:

"The High Court also observed that an admission in a pleading can be used only for the purpose of the suit in which the pleading was filed. The observations of Beaumont, C.J. in Ramabai Shriniwas v. Bombay Government AIR 1941 Bom 144, lend some countenance to this view. But those observations were commented upon and explained by the Bombay High Court in D. S. Mohite v. S. I Mohite AIR 1960 Bom 153. An admission by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him in a prior suit is an admission within the meaning of S. 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and may be proved against him in other litigations. The High Court also relied on the English Law of evidence. In Phipson on Evidence, 10th Edn., Art.741, the English law is thus summarized:

"Pleadings, although admissible in other actions, to show the institution of the suit and the nature of the case put forward, are regarded merely as the suggestion of counsel, and are not receivable against a party as admissions, unless sworn, signed, or otherwise adopted by the party himself." Thus, even under the English law, a statement in a pleading sworn, signed or otherwise adopted by a party is admissible against him in other actions. In Marianski v. Cairns (1852) 1 Macq 212, the House of Lords decided that an admission in a pleading signed by a party was evidence against him in another suit not only with regard to a different subject-matter but also against a different opponent. Moreover, we are not concerned with the technicalities of the English law. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes no distinction between an admission made by a party in a pleading and other admissions. Under the Indian law, an admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mritunjoy Sett (D) by LR's v. Jadunath Basak (D