SMT. BINDU SHARMA vs KAPIL SUD AND ANR - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5723

Headnote:(A) Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Section 10 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17, Section 151 - Amendment of written statement - Withdrawal of admissions - Principles - Amendment cannot be permitted to withdraw clear and categorical admissions that confer a valuable right on the opposite party - Liberal approach for amendment of written statement but subject to limitations - Delay of over four years without satisfactory explanation - Bona fides - Court must ensure amendment does not cause irreparable prejudice. (Paras 11-17, 18-22)

(B) Admissions - Effect - Once made in written statement, constitute substantive evidence and create valuable rights - Withdrawal through amendment would deprive plaintiff of legitimate advantage. (Para 20)

(C) Appeal - Scope - Interference with discretion of Single Judge when exercised ignoring settled legal principles. (Paras 24-25)

Facts of the case:
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts in respect of a property. The respondent No.2, one of the legal heirs, filed a written statement on 03.05.2019 supporting the appellant's case, admitting equal division and having no knowledge of an alleged Will. After more than four years, respondent No.2 sought amendment to assert the Will's genuineness, claim the property was the mother's self-acquired property, and oppose partition. The learned Single Judge allowed the amendment, holding that trial had not commenced and that a liberal approach should be adopted. The appellant appealed.

Findings of Court:
The proposed amendment sought to completely displace earlier admissions and substitute an entirely contrary defence. The explanation of a mistaken belief induced by the appellant was not bona fide and appeared an afterthought. The delay of over four years was significant and unexplained. Permitting such amendment would cause serious prejudice to the appellant by denying the benefit of admissions. The Single Judge failed to consider the settled principle that admissions cannot be withdrawn when they confer a substantive right. The impugned order was set aside.

Issues: Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in permitting amendment of the written statement to withdraw clear admissions and substitute an entirely contrary defence after a lapse of more than four years.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment that withdraws clear and categorical admissions made in the written statement, which confer a valuable right on the opposite party, cannot be permitted. Such an amendment is not bona fide and would cause irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff. The power of amendment is circumscribed by this limitation, even in the case of written statements.

Result: Appeal allowed. Impugned order dated 24.11.2025 set aside. I.A. No. 16481/2023 dismissed. Suit to proceed on the basis of the original written statement filed by respondent No.2 on 03.05.2019. Parties directed to appear before the learned Single Judge for further proceedings.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act against order allowing amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to withdraw admissions. (Para 1 , 6 )

2. Appellant contended amendment was belated attempt to withdraw admissions; respondent argued liberal approach warranted as trial not commenced. (Para 7 , 8 )

3. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; amendment application dismissed; suit to proceed on original written statement. (Para 26 , 27 )

4. Can a party be permitted to amend its written statement to withdraw clear and categorical admissions made in the pleadings?

No, if such amendment would displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions and cause irretrievable prejudice, as it confers a valuable right on the opposite party. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )

5. What is the relevance of delay and bona fides in an application for amendment seeking to withdraw admissions?

Delay assumes material character when amendment seeks to withdraw admissions; lack of bona fides and unsatisfactory explanation justify refusal of amendment. (Para 21 , 22 )

J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, assailing the Order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 84/2019 whereby I.A. No. 16481/2023 filed by Respondent No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) was allowed and Respondent No.2 was permitted to amend his Written Statement by substantially altering the admissions earlier made therein.

2. The underlying suit has been instituted by the Appellant/Plaintiff seeking declaration, partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts in respect of property bearing No. M-9, Green Park Main, New Delhi measuring approximately 500 sq. yards (“Suit Property”). The Appellant and Respondents No.1 and 2 are the children and legal heirs of Late Major Satya Pal Sud and Late Smt. Promila Sud.

3. As per the plaint, the Suit Property was purchased by Late Major Satya Pal Sud/father of the Appellant in the name of Smt. Promila Sud/mother of the Appellant through a registered perpetual lease deed dated 13.12.1957, subsequently transferred to the name of Major Satya Pal Sud and was treated as part of the family estate. After the demise of Major Satya Pal Sud on 29.05.1967 intestate, the property devolved upon Smt. Promila Sud and the three children in equal shares. By mutual understanding reflected in affidavits dated 27.12.1990, the property was mutated exclusively in the name of Smt. Promila Sud with the understanding that the property would not be partitioned during her life time. Smt. Promila Sud passed away on 06.01.2016.

4. It is further pleaded that the disputes inter se the parties arose thereafter when Respondent No.1 asserted exclusive ownership over the Suit Property and began collecting rent from tenants. Consequently, when the Appellant served a legal notice dated 02.05.2016 on the Respondents, in reply thereof, the Respondents for the first time relied upon an alleged Will dated 25.11.2014 purportedly executed by Smt. Promila Sud in their favour. The Appellant contends that the said Will is forged and fabricated and has therefore filed the

suit seeking a declaration to that effect along with consequential reliefs of partition and injunction.

5. Respondent No.2 filed his Written Statement on 03.05.2019 wherein he substantially supported the Appellant’s case. In the said Written Statement, Respondent No.2 admitted that the property ought to be equally divided among the three siblings and expressed having no knowledge regarding the alleged Will dated 25.11.2014. Respondent No.2 also reiterated that the mother had desired equal distribution of the property amongst her children.

6. After a lapse of more than four years, Respondent No.2 filed I.A. No. 16481/2023 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the Written Statement. By way of the proposed amendments, Respondent No.2 sought to completely retract his earlier admissions and take a diametrically opposite stand by asserting that the Will dated 25.11.2014 is genuine and enforceable, that the Suit Property was the absolute self-acquired property of Smt. Promila Sud, and that the Appellant’s suit deserves dismissal.

7. By the impugned order dated 26.11.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed the application holding that the trial had not commenced and that a liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering amendment of Written Statement. The Court further held that the proposed amendment merely clarifies the position of Respondent No.2 with respect to the Will dated 25.11.2014 and would assist in determining the real questions in controversy. Aggrieved thereof, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

8. The impugned order was assailed by the Appellant contending that the application was a belated attempt to withdraw clear and categorical admissions made in the Written Statement and to realign with Respondent No.1. It was further contended that all material facts, including th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vivek Chaudhary, Renu Bhatnagar, JJ
SMT. BINDU SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
KAPIL SUD AND ANR – Respondent
FAO(OS)-3/2026

A party cannot be permitted to amend its written statement to withdraw clear admissions that confer a valuable right on the opposite party, especially when the amendment is belated and lacks bona fides.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a party be permitted to amend its written statement to withdraw clear and categorical admissions made in the pleadings?

5. What is the relevance of delay and bona fides in an application for amendment seeking to withdraw admissions?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIVivek Chaudhary, Renu Bhatnagar, JJSMT. BINDU SHARMA – AppellantVersusKAPIL SUD AND ANR – RespondentFAO(OS)-3/2026

A party cannot be permitted to amend its written statement to withdraw clear admissions that confer a valuable right on the opposite party, especially when the amendment is belated and lacks bona fides.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a party be permitted to amend its written statement to withdraw clear and categorical admissions made in the pleadings?

5. What is the relevance of delay and bona fides in an application for amendment seeking to withdraw admissions?

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vivek Chaudhary, Renu Bhatnagar, JJ
SMT. BINDU SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
KAPIL SUD AND ANR – Respondent
FAO(OS)-3/2026