The court emphasized that amendments to a written statement should be judged more leniently than to a plaint, allowing for retraction of admissions.

1. A short pedigree table shall be useful in understanding the relationship between the parties and the dispute:

2. Defendants 6 to 8 are the sisters of defendants 2 to 4. Defendant No. 7 Parmila Kumari is the wife of the plaintiff Om Prakash Bajaj.

3. Messrs Jagan Nath Prem Nath is a partnership firm of which defendants 2 to 4 and their father Jagan Nath were the partners. Jagan Nath died in 1974 and the partnership was reconstituted and defendants 2 to 4 and their mother Smt. Sewa Dai became the partners.

4. The plaintiff Om Prakash Bajaj has filed a suit against the firm and defendants 2 to 8 tor recovery of Rs.18,500.66 p. The case of the plaintiff is that the firm was in financial difficulties and from time to time he was giving loan by way of deposits and that after adjusting the amounts received by him (Rs.3500/-towards the principal and Rs.4984/- towards interest) Rs. 18,500.66 p. are due from the firm and the firm has not paid the said amount in spite of demands and requests. The plaintiff in para 7 has in support of the claim relied upon a letter dated 3rd September 1979 written to him by defendant No. 4 and another letter dated 27th September 1979 again from defendant No. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that in the said two letters his claim was accepted by defendants 4 and 5.

5. Defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement admitted that some deposits were made by the plaintiff but contended that the total amount had been paid back and nothing w as now due to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 denied that payment of Rs.3500/- was towards the principal and Rs.4984/- towards interest. Defendants 1 to 3 reiterated in para 12 of the written statement that the entire loan with interest had been paid back to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 pleaded that the letters dated 3rd September and 27th September 1979 have been obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with defendants 4 and 5. Defendants 1 to 3 denied that cheque for Rs.1000/- (mentioned in the letter dated 27th September 1979) was issued by M/s. Bharat Packaging and Allied Industries and endorsed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No. 4 at their instance.

6. Defendants 4 to 8 in a joint written statement admitted the payments said to have been made by the plaintiff but pleaded that since they are not in possession of the account books they are unable to make a definite statement regarding the amount payable to the plaintiff. The said defendants further pleaded that defendants 2 and 3 have been managing the affairs of defendant No. 1 and they had the account books with them and, therefore, defendants 4 and 5 are not liable. Defendant No. 4 admitted to have written the letters dated 3rd September 1979 and 27th September 1979 and further having sent a cheque for Rs. 1000/- but pleaded that the payment of the cheque was stopped at the instance of defendants 2 and 3. They further pleaded that they are unable to reply para 11 of the plaint accurately in the absence of relevant record and account books.

7. On 7th August 1982 defendants 4 and 5 filed an application under O.6 R.17 read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend paras 7, 8, 12, 14 and 15 of the written statement. Defendants 4 and 5 have stated in the application that at the time of the filing of the written statement they were living with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had by exercising undue influence obtained the letters from defendants 4 and 5. Defendants 4 and 5 stated that the loan amounts alleged in the plaint had been paid back to the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the admissions contained in the letters dated 3rd September 1979 and 27th September 1979 were obtained by the plaintiff under undue pressure and