1988 Supreme(All) 288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. P. MISHRA
MAHENDRA RADIO AND TELEVISION, MEERUT - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondents
CIV. REVN. 132 Of 1987
Decided On : 05/17/1988

Amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally to ensure that the real questions in controversy between the parties are determined. Admissions made in pleadings are not actual admissions and can be explained by the party making them. Amendments should not be rejected merely because they seek to withdraw admissions made in the original pleadings, unless such withdrawal would deprive the other party of a valuable right.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER VI, RULE 17 - AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - SCOPE AND PURPOSE - ADMISSIONS IN PLEADINGS - EFFECT AND WITHDRAWAL - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ALLOWANCE OF AMENDMENTS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMISSIONS AND INFERENCES DRAWN FROM LACK OF SPECIFIC DENIAL - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER VIII, RULE 5, C.P.C. - REJECTION OF AMENDMENT TO WRITTEN STATEMENT - CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING INTERFERENCE BY APPELLATE COURT.

Fact of the Case:

Defendants-applicants challenged the order of the trial court rejecting part of their proposed amendment to the written statement. The trial court had allowed some paragraphs of the amendment but rejected others without providing any reasons. The defendants argued that the amendments were necessary to elaborate their existing contentions and did not change the nature of the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting part of the proposed amendment without providing any reasons. It found that the amendments sought to clarify the defendants' stand on various facts and did not amount to a withdrawal of admissions made in the original written statement. The court also held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the amendment to paragraph 18 of the written statement, which sought to deny the execution of a revival agreement of the alleged loan. The court found that this amendment would have displaced the plaintiff-bank completely from admissions made by the defendants and deprived it of a valuable right.

Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting part of the proposed amendment to the written statement without providing any reasons? 2. Whether the amendments sought to clarify the defendants' stand on various facts and did not amount to a withdrawal of admissions made in the original written statement? 3. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment to paragraph 18 of the written statement, which sought to deny the execution of a revival agreement of the alleged loan?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting part of the proposed amendment without providing any reasons. It found that the amendments sought to clarify the defendants' stand on various facts and did not amount to a withdrawal of admissions made in the original written statement. The court also held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the amendment to paragraph 18 of the written statement, which sought to deny the execution of a revival agreement of the alleged loan. The court found that this amendment would have displaced the plaintiff-bank completely from admissions made by the defendants and deprived it of a valuable right. 2. The court held that the amendments sought to clarify the defendants' stand on various facts and did not amount to a withdrawal of admissions made in the original written statement. The court noted that Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C. provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted. However, the court held that this rule does not create a vested right in favor of the plaintiff to refuse amendment to the written statement. The court also held that admissions under Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C. are not actual admissions and that a party can explain such admissions. 3. The court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the amendment to paragraph 18 of the written statement, which sought to deny the execution of a revival agreement of the alleged loan. The court found that this amendment would have displaced the plaintiff-bank completely from admissions made by the defendants and deprived it of a valuable right.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition. It set aside the impugned order of the trial court to the extent that it refused amendment to the remaining paragraphs of the proposed amendment, except for the amendment to paragraph 18 of the written statement by virtue of which "the defendants never executed any revival agreement of the alleged loan" was sought to be introduced. The court held that the refusal to amend paragraph 18 was justified.