Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5878
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
ROY PALACKAL THEYOCHEN – Appellant
Versus
THE SEA VIEW CLUB – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1649 OF 2025 | IA 6/2024 | OS NO.20 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.B.PRAMOD, SHRI.ATHUL M.V.
For the Respondents: SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SMT.PINKU MARIAM JOSE, SMT.NICHU WILLINGTON, SMT.K.M.FATHIMA
The court established that existing admissions in pleadings cannot be negated by subsequent amendments.
Headnote:This Original Petition challenges an order permitting the amendment of a written statement, where the petitioner claims that an existing admission regarding payment was removed. The Court finds that the admission remains intact despite the introduction of additional pleadings, leaving the issue for trial. The petition is thus disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order permitting amendment of written statement. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT
This Original Petition has been filed challenging an order, whereby an amendment of the written statement has been permitted. The contention of the petitioner is that while permitting the amendment, an admission, which was already existing, regarding the nature of payment of money pursuant to an agreement has been taken away.
2. I have gone through the written statement and the application for amendment and have considered the arguments on either side. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, the petitioner has pleaded that a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been paid as part payment towards the total sale consideration. In paragraph 6 of the written statement, the defendants have specifically stated that the allegations in paragraph 7 of the plaint are true and hence admitted. It was thereafter that paragraph 10(a) was sought to be introduced, stating that the amounts of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- were to be considered as earnest money. It is hence clear that the admission which was already there in the form of paragraph 6 of the written statement remains there and that has not been replaced by any other pleading. Hence, it cannot be said that an admission which is already existing in the written statement has been taken away by including paragraph 10(a). The manner in which the additional pleading has to be understood is a matter to be gone into in the trial and decided. As such, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order allowing the amendment of the written statement.
The Original Petition is disposed of with the above observations.
Sd/-
