Admission made in the written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn, and the court can consider the question of title of the plaintiff to the suit house incidentally.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri A. K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Akash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.

2. By means of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court seeking to set aside the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the Trial Judge in SCC Suit No. 72 of 2003 and that of the Court sitting in revision dated 25.8.2021 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Revision No. 06 of 2018, whereby second amendment application of the defendant to amend written statement has come to be allowed.

3. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment application that was moved by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 31st July, 2004 seeking to change his character of a tenant which was otherwise an admission vide paragraphs 8 and 9 of the original written statement. It is argued that the manner in which amendment was sought to be incorporated in the original proceedings amounted to withdrawal of admission. This application bearing paper no. 24-C came to be rejected by Trial Court on 25.10.2008 in absence of counsel for the defendant and matter was posted for evidence and no application for recall was filed in respect of order dated 15.10.2008 and yet again an another amendment application came to be filed by the defendants respondents on 25th January, 2017 to incorporate certain more paragraphs after paragraph 8.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that petitioner vide new paragraphs 8-A to 8-D wanted to incorporate that subsequently he having obtained knowledge came to know that there was serious dispute of ownership amongst the owners and so defendant would not be a tenant of the plaintiff and as such not liable to pay rent.

5. It is thus argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that tenant in fact wanted to withdraw the admission again and has camouflaged the withdrawal of admission originally made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the written statement, by twisting the facts. It is also argued that second amendment application was hit by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

6. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the contesting respondent that merely because earlier application was dismissed on the ground of non appearance of party seeking the amendment, it would not operate as res judicata to hold that subsequent application was not maintainable. Moreover, as he argued, subsequently certain fresh facts came to the knowledge petitioners were only sought to be incorporated. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would not dispute that whatever has been stated in paragraph 8, if amendment is allowed would certainly be countering those averments and may amount to withdrawal.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. v. Ladha Ram & Co.,1977 AIR 680 has very clearly held that admission made in the written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn. Vide paragraph 10 of the judgment (supra), it was held thus:

"It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paragraphs 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. The High Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the trial court."

8. In so far dispute amongst the parties having right to the property in question is concerned and as to whether landlord would be entitled to maintain suit for recovery of rent or ejectment or not, this aspect can be incidentally gone into by the court hearing SCC suit even. Supreme Court in