The main legal point established in the judgment is that admissions in a written statement are not conclusive proof and the party making the admission has the right to prove that they are mistaken or untrue, and to withdraw or explain away such admissions.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiff is in revision petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby the defendant-respondent was permitted to amend the written statement filed by his mother Mukhtiar Kaur.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of l/3rd share of suit land against his mother. Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff but before the Court could pass a decree on the basis of such admission, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur died. The respondent herein is his son impleaded as her legal representative who filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawing the admission written statement filed on behalf of Mukhtiar Kaur alleging therein that the plaintiff has manipulated admission of defendant fraudulently and against the interest of Mukhtiar Kaur. It was also alleged that Mukhtiar Kaur could not make this admission and such admission was wrong, erroneous and against the interest of the maker. Such application for amendment has been allowed by the learned trial Court which order is being challenged by the petitioner by way of present revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that by virtue of the amendment the defendant has sought to withdraw the admission made by his mother Mukhtiar Kaur in the written statement. The legal representatives of Mukhtiar Kaur i.e. the respondents herein, cannot be permitted to withdraw admission in the present suit. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Atam Parkash Sharma, (1994-3)108 Punjab Law Reporter 28 and Jagga Singh v. Harpal Singh, (1995-1)109 Punjab Law Reporter 763 to contend that the admission made in the written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents controverted such argument raised by the petitioner and asserted that admission can be proved to be wrong and can be explained, as the case may be. In the present case, the defendant has clearly and unequivocally asserted that the admission written statement filed on behalf of Mukhtiar Kaur is a manipulated admission obtained fraudulently without the knowledge of Mukhtiar Kaur. It would be a question of fact which can be appreciated on the basis of evidence whether such admission is binding on Mukhtiar Kaur and consequently upon the answering defendants or such admission written statement is not binding on the rights of the defendants. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Anr. A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 462 as well as the judgments of this Court reported as Kehar Singh v. Balraj Singh and Ors. 1991 P.L.J. 154; Gujjar Singh v. Gulzar Singh and Ors. (1991-2)100 Punjab Law Reporter 266; and Naresh Kumar v. Shri Rajinder Paul Sharma, (2002-2)131 Punjab Law Reporter 618.

5. In Atom Parkash Sharmas case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the defendant has sought to withdraw the admission made in written statement alleging negligence of the counsel. It was found that it is not a ground to permit the defendant to withdraw a clear admission. It was held that unless by reference to the facts it is shown that it was made under mistaken belief or the same was erroneous, the admission made in the written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn. It was held to the following effect:-

"....The only explanation the learned counsel for the respondent offered during the course of hearing was that the defendant made admission in the written statement on account of negligence of the counsel. This in my view is hardly a ground to permit the defendant to withdraw a clear admission made in the written statement unless by reference to the facts it is shown that the same was made under mistaken belief or the same was erroneous. The amendment sought does no