SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(P&H) 244

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Durga Dutt - Petitioner
Versus
Banwari Lal - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 4911 of 1997.
Decided On : 20 February, 2001

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate.

The court emphasized the validity of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and the permissibility of withdrawal of admissions in the given circumstances.

Headnote:

Amendment of Pleadings - Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 - Charan Singh v. Kulwinder Kaur, 1976 Revenue Law Reporter Punjab and Haryana High Court page 365; Narain Auto Agency v. M/s Sat Kartar Engineering Works, 1990 PLJ Punjab and Haryana High Court 467; Jangir Singh v. Mohinder Kaur, 1993(2) Punjab Law Reporter Punjab and Haryana High Court 512; M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s Ladha Ram and Co., AIR 1977 Supreme Court 680; Patna Regional Development authority v. M/s Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam, 1996(2) Latest Judicial Reports Supreme Court of India page 11; Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa, 1995(2) Latest Judicial Reports Supreme Court of India 53; M/s Mahendra Radio and Television, Meerut v. State Bank of India, AIR 1988 Allahabad 257; Kundeep Singh v. Haryana High Court, 1995 PLJ and Haryana High Court Page 13

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision against the order allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff for amending the reply to counter claim.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the revision and directed the trial court to decide the case within one year from the receipt of the order.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, withdrawal of admissions, and the requirement for the trial court to decide the case within a specified time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was valid, withdrawal of admissions was permissible in the given circumstances, and directed the trial court to decide the case within one year.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to decide the case within one year.

JUDGMENT

R.L. Anand, J. - Shri Durga Dutt petitioner has filed the present revision and it has been directed against the order dated 24.9.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narnaul, who allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by Banwari Lal plaintiff/respondent.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-

To begin with, suit No. 1489 of 1993 was instituted at the instance of Banwari Lal plaintiff/respondent for permanent injunction against the defendants namely Bhawani Dutt and Durga Dutt to the effect that they be restrained from interfering into possession, cultivation and use of the suit land measuring 12 marlas gair mumkin house comprised in Khewat No. 165 min, Khatoni No. 213, Killa No. 13//26, situated in village Nangal Kalia, Tehsil Narnaul, as per jamabandi for the year 1990-91. Notice of the suit was given to the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who filed the written statement in which they also raised counter claim. Plaintiff Banwari Lal filed re-joinder to the counter claim. The counter claim was filed on 10.9.1996. The replication was filed on 26.11.1996. Later on Banwari Lal withdrew the suit for one reason or the other and the counter claim of the petitioner continued. It is the case of the petitioner that in the re-joinder to the counter claim since Banwari Lal has not specifically denied the averments of the written statement, therefore, the averments of the written statement shall be presumed to have been admitted and in these circumstances the counter claim of the defendants is bound to be decreed and allowed. When the matter was at the arguments stage, respondent Banwari Lal filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and prayed that he may be allowed to elucidate certain matters in the re- joinder filed by him earlier to the counter claim. Notice of the application was given to the petitioner and after hearing the submissions, the learned trial court allowed the application for the reasons contained in paras 5 to 7 of the impugned order dated 24.9.1997, which read as follows:-

"5. While opposing the application of the plaintiff the ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon Charan Singh v. Kulwinder Kaur and another, 1976 Revenue Law Reporter Punjab and Haryana High Court page 365. His Lordship has observed wherein that in amendment of written statement new and inconsistent plea not permissible. He has also relied upon Narain Auto Agency and another v. M/s Sat Kartar Engineering Works, 1990 PLJ Punjab and Haryana High Court 467, wherein His Lordship has observed that admission made in written statement sought to be withdrawn, defendant cannot be permitted to withdraw his admission as same going to affect case of plaintiff and party cannot be allowed to set up absolutely different case by way of amendment of plea. He has also placed reliance on Jangir Singh v. Mohinder Kaur and others, 1993(2) Punjab Law Reporter Punjab and Haryana High Court 512 and M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s Ladha Ram and Co., AIR 1977 Supreme Court 680. On the other hand, the plaintiff/applicant has placed reliance on Patna Regional Development authority and others. v. M/s Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam and others, with M/s Walia Builders v. Rashtriya Pariojna Nirman Nigam and others, 1996(2) Latest Judicial Reports Supreme Court of India page 11, wherein Their Lordships have observed that the court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. He has also placed reliance on Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and another, 1995(2) Latest Judicial Reports Supreme Court of India 53, wherein Their Lordships held that it is settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings by way of amendment. He has also relied upon M/s Mahendra Radio and Television, Meerut and another v. State Bank of India, AIR 1988 Allahabad 257 and Kundeep Singh and another, 1995
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top