IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6811 of 2025 ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS Versus FASEE UDDIN Appearance:

Ms. Tulika Gulatee - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the tenant/ defendant against whom eviction suit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 being landlord/plaintiff.

2. It is the case of the petitioner/tenant that an application for amendment in the written statement has been filed wherein in paragraph 7 of the written statement in place of word "Sweekar" (admitted) the petitioner wants to replace the word "Asweekar" (not admitted).

3. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the amendment is only innocuous in nature and it is a single word amendment and only the affirmative word is being changed to non-affirmative and the innocuous amendment should have been allowed by the trial court. It is further argued that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the assertion that there is a oral partition in the family and as per said oral partition the suit shop has come to share of the landlord/plaintiff and on that assertion the suit was filed but later on in a case filed by the plaintiff against his own son under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior citizens Act 2007, the son of the plaintiff has taken a defense that there is no partition in the property of his grandfather, therefore the defendant wants to take a plea to that effect.

4. Upon considering the aforesaid assertions, it is seen that in paragraph 7 of the plaint the plaintiff has made the assertion that there was a old property which was reconstructed and in the constructed portion he and his various brothers have taken their separate portions and in the share of plaintiff a shop has been given on rent to the present petitioner with whom there is a rent agreement and regular payment is being made to the plaintiff. This paragraph was "admitted" by defendant in the written statement meaning thereby that the suit shop in share of plaintiff, and relationship of landlord and tenant, as well as tenancy was admitted by the tenant with the plaintiff. Now by replacing the word "admitted" with the word "not admitted" the petitioner wants to deny the status of landlord and tenant and relationship of tenancy with the plaintiff, and wants to open up the issue of partition in family of the plaintiff.

5. It is settled in law that any admission which goes to the root of the matter cannot be withdrawn. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Heeralal Vs. Kalyanmal & others AIR 1998 SC 618 has held as under:-

"......... Even that apart, the said decision of two learned Judges of this Court runs counter to a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co. [(1976) 4 SCC 320 : (1977) 1 SCR 728] In that case Ray, C.J., speaking for the Bench had to consider the question whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed. If such amendments are allowed in the written statement the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. In that case a suit was filed by the plaintiff for claiming a decree for Rs 1,30,000 against the defendants. The defendants in their written statement admitted that by virtue of an agreement dated 7-4-1967 the plaintiff worked as their stockist-cum-distributor. After three years the defendants by application under Order VI Rule 17 sought amendment of written statement by substituting paras 25 and 26 with a new paragraph in which they took the fresh plea