Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The principle is supported by multiple judicial precedents, including Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that admissions in pleadings are binding and cannot be withdrawn merely by amendment Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, SCC 203.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["M/s EMTA Coal Limited, Sri Ujjal Kumar Upadhaya vs HDFC Bank Limited - Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal"]- ["Shashikant Dhondiram Kalaskar VS Asha Vasant Jadhav - Bombay"]- ["Ramesh Duggal Alias Pappu VS Pt. Ram Shanker Mishra Trust Chief Office - Allahabad"]- ["Harijit Singh vs Raj Kaur - Orissa"]- ["Srimatya Kalpana Dolai & Ors. vs Sri Tapan Kumar Dolai & Ors. - Calcutta"]- ["SRI B RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs B MUNIREDDY - Karnataka"]- Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, SCC 203- ["Bidyut Lata Bardhan vs Sanjukta Bardhan@Ray - Orissa"]- ["Akhtar Hussain vs Sheikh Israel - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Smt. Thummala Suguna vs Smt. Kothuru Chandrakala - Telangana"]- ["Hindu College Committee, Guntur District VS Shaik Subhani - Current Civil Cases"]- ["Hindu College Committee, represented by its Secretary and Correspondent VS Shaik Subhani - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Debobrata Mondal VS Pijush Banerjee - Calcutta"]- ["KAUSHALYABAI NARAYAN JADHAV AND OTHERS vs SAKHARAM KARBHARI KHUNE AND OTHERS - Bombay"]- ["Kasturibai @ Lakkavva VS Subhas @ Subhash Reddi - Karnataka"]
In civil litigation, pleadings form the backbone of a case. A counter affidavit, often filed by respondents in proceedings like writ petitions, serves as a crucial pleading akin to a written statement. But what happens when a party realizes they've made a categorical admission that could sink their defense? Can they simply amend it away under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)?
This question—cases on admissions made by the respondent in his counter affidavit cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment—arises frequently and has been addressed in numerous judgments. Generally, courts hold that such admissions are binding and cannot be wholly withdrawn if it causes prejudice to the opponent. This blog post breaks down the legal principles, key cases, exceptions, and practical tips, drawing from authoritative sources.
Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, judicial admissions in pleadings are fully binding and waive the need for proof. They can even form the foundation of the opponent's rights. Courts have consistently ruled that categorical or clear admissions in pleadings, such as written statements or counter affidavits, cannot be wholly withdrawn or resiled from by way of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPCRam Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144.
The rationale? Allowing withdrawal would displace the opponent's case and cause irretrievable prejudice Heeralal VS Kalyanmal - 1997 10 Supreme 56. As held in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal: Once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, by amendment such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing case of plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice Heeralal VS Kalyanmal - 1997 10 Supreme 56S. Malla Reddy VS Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 390.
This principle extends to counter affidavits, treated as pleadings in proceedings like those under Article 226. No direct case mandates counter affidavit, but uniform application to pleadings ensures consistency Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144.
Amendments to written statements receive a more liberal treatment than plaints, given lower prejudice risk. Courts permit:- Adding new grounds of defense.- Substituting or altering defenses.- Raising inconsistent pleas, unlike in plaints Usha Balashaheb Swami VS Kiran Appaso Swami - 2007 3 Supreme 582Baldev Singh VS Manohar Singh - 2006 5 Supreme 943.
However, limits apply. In one case, adding a proviso to an admission was allowed as it didn't withdraw it Usha Balashaheb Swami VS Kiran Appaso Swami - 2007 3 Supreme 582. But admissions matching the original stand cannot be withdrawn if prejudicial S. Malla Reddy VS Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 390. Explicitly: Admissions in written statement cannot be withdrawn/omitted via O6 R17; new case not permissible Jyotsna Bala Maity VS Hansibala Pramanik - 2015 0 Supreme(Cal) 281.
From other rulings, an admission made in the written statement cannot be withdrawn by way of an amendment MADHUSRI KONAR VS NEW CENTRAL BOOK AGENCY PVT LIMITED - 2019 Supreme(Cal) 21. Similarly, Amendment to the written statement after commencement trial which has the effect of withdrawing the two admissions in it can not be allowed Ram Agarwal VS B. Jagannath Rao - 2008 Supreme(AP) 509.
Older cases like Panchdeo Narain Srivastava allowed withdrawal, but these stand overruled. In Ram Niranjan Kajaria, the Supreme Court clarified: To that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn... does not reflect the correct legal position and it is overruled Raj Kumar Mulani VS Ramesh Kumar Hemrajani - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 1604Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144.
Key precedents include:- Nagindas Ramdas: Categorical admissions cannot be withdrawn Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144.- Revajeetu Builders: Amendments weighed on factors like bona fides, prejudice, delay, and justice Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144SHANTI DEVI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GONDA - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 1576.- Gautam Sarup: Endorses no withdrawal of categorical admissions SRI B RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs B MUNIREDDY.- Heeralal: Bars withdrawal displacing opponent's case Heeralal VS Kalyanmal - 1997 10 Supreme 56.
In Usha Balasahab Swami, subsequent Supreme Court judgments did not follow stricter views, reinforcing caution Duryodhan VS Collector/D. D. C. Basti. A Gauhati High Court case set aside an amendment substituting parentage admission, noting prejudice to the plaintiff Md. Safiqul Islam VS Lakheswar Deka - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1218.
Courts apply a multi-factor test from Revajeetu Builders:1. Whether imperative for adjudication of real issues.2. Bona fides of the applicant.3. Compensable prejudice to opponent.4. Avoiding multiplicity of proceedings or injustice.5. No fundamental change in suit nature.6. No limitation bar Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144SHANTI DEVI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GONDA - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 1576.
Delay alone isn't fatal, but unexplained withdrawal after years, issue framing, or trial commencement is rejected as mala fide Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144Jyotsna Bala Maity VS Hansibala Pramanik - 2015 0 Supreme(Cal) 281. For instance, amendments after 17-25 years were denied Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144.
Post-trial amendments are scrutinized: They must not withdraw adverse admissions or introduce new causes Pushpavalli VS Rameela - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1454. One case allowed post-trial plaint amendment to correct property extent, as it caused no prejudice Pushpavalli VS Rameela - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1454. But for admissions, By way of amendment, the admission cannot be withdrawn by him. Non-denial of services of notice... amounts to admission PANCHWATI MARKETING PVT. LTD. VS RAVINDRA KUMAR JAIN - 2016 Supreme(All) 191.
Not all changes are barred:- Clarification or explanation of admissions Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144.- Alternative pleas extending defense, not negating it B. K. N. Pillai VS P. Pillai - 1999 10 Supreme 229Baldev Singh VS Manohar Singh - 2006 5 Supreme 943.- Early-stage, bona fide applications with no prejudice Ramesh Dutt S/O Bhogiram Sharma VS Dev S/O Bhogiram Sharma - 1990 0 Supreme(MP) 393.- Adding explanations or necessary parties, without withdrawing favorable admissions MADHUSRI KONAR VS NEW CENTRAL BOOK AGENCY PVT LIMITED - 2019 Supreme(Cal) 21.
Impermissible:- Wholly resiling from categorical admissions post-delay Anand Kumar VS Prem Chandra - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 2027.- Setting up new cases prejudicing opponent VEGUNTA MAHARANI SAMYUKTHA VS YELAMANCHILI BHUVANESWARI DEVI - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 129.- Post-trial withdrawal unless due diligence shown Baldev Singh VS Manohar Singh - 2006 5 Supreme 943.
In copyright disputes, courts allowed explanatory amendments but disallowed admission withdrawals MADHUSRI KONAR VS NEW CENTRAL BOOK AGENCY PVT LIMITED - 2019 Supreme(Cal) 21.
To navigate this:- File amendments early for clarification or alternatives; explain delay and original admission context.- Challenge admission basis via separate suit, not pleading amendment Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144.- Offer costs to compensate opponent for liberal grants.- Trial courts have wide discretion; appellate interference only for jurisdictional error Ramesh Dutt S/O Bhogiram Sharma VS Dev S/O Bhogiram Sharma - 1990 0 Supreme(MP) 393.
Generally, admissions in a respondent's counter affidavit cannot be withdrawn by amendment if categorical, to prevent prejudice under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. While courts favor determining real controversies, binding judicial admissions set firm boundaries. Cases like Nagindas, Heeralal, and Revajeetu guide this balance, overruling laxer precedents.
Key Takeaways:- Categorical admissions are binding; no wholesale withdrawal Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144Heeralal VS Kalyanmal - 1997 10 Supreme 56.- Liberal for written statements, but prejudice trumps Usha Balashaheb Swami VS Kiran Appaso Swami - 2007 3 Supreme 582.- Focus on bona fides, timely action, and non-destructive changes.
Stay informed, plead carefully, and seek professional advice to safeguard your litigation strategy.
#CPCAmendment, #LegalAdmissions, #CivilProcedure
A bare perusal of the proposed amendment would reveal that it was a total new written statement filed on behalf of the Respondents herein. Even admissions made in the written statement are being withdrawn. ... There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. ... On 05.04.2021 direction was issued to the Respondent Bank to serve copy of the evidence upon Defendants/Appellants and #HL_S....
We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas (supra) and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup (supra) that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. ... Pathan, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the averments which are sought to be deleted by way of amendment constituted important admissions in favour of defendant no.2 and that therefore plaintiff cannot be permit....
It is equally well settled that admissions cannot be withdrawn but the same may be explained by way of amendment. 15. ... He submits that in view of the statements made in paragraph 14 of the written statement it cannot be said that the plaintiffs sought to withdraw the admissions by way of amendment. ... The learned trial judge did not consider as to whether the opposite parties sought to explain the adm....
in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment". ... We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas (supra) and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup (supra) that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. ... Therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment, an admission of fact cannot be wi....
(2015) 10 SCC 203 , have stated that categorical admissions made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of amendment. It is observed as follows: “23. ... Leela Jetly, (2008) 7 SCC 85] that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. To that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withd....
The counsel for the petitioners has argued that by way of the impugned amendment, certain admissions which were made in the written statement have been sought to be withdrawn and various facts which had been admitted have now been denied and various material pleadings have been permitted to be amended ... Therefore, the amendment in question is in fact not a bona fide amendment, but it is an amendment setting up a totally new case from the original ....
On a careful analysis of the respective stands taken by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the application praying for the amendment of the written statement and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is clear that at least two admissions which had been made in written statement ... A counter affidavit in detail had been filed by the respondent-plaintiff wherein specific stand had been taken that the stand t....
It is well known that the admission made by a party cannot be withdrawn subsequently by way of amendment and the scope of amendment cannot be extended to such extent permitting the party to withdraw the admissions made by her to cause prejudice to other side. ... It is contended on behalf of Defendant No.3 that by way of amendment, the admissions earlier made by....
State, cannot be allowed to stand on behalf of the defendant by way of amendment. ... 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. ... It is objected by the plaintiff that the defendant cannot alter his defence after thirteen years of filing of his written statement to withdraw the admissions made on his....
We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas (supra) and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup ((2008)7 SCC 85) that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside in the light of the allegations made in the application and the counter allegations that are 10 amendment amounts to withdrawal of the #HL....
However, he submits that the amendment petition ought not to have been allowed inasmuch as there is a specific admission on the part of the said defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff in the suit Safiqul Islam, is one of the sons of late Tanu Miah @ Islam. Once an admission is made in the pleading, the same cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment but the court below allowed to substitute such admission by the amendment sought for by the defendant No. 1.
However, it is to be noted that an admission once made in the written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. Furthermore, amendments with regard to raising inconsistent and new pleadings may be allowed in a written statement.
It is to be further ensured that the amendment sought does not change the character, nature of the suit and is not made to introduce a new cause of action. In case of post trial amendments it has to be seen that admissions or averments made adverse to oneself is not withdrawn by way of amendment. Yet other principles to ensure are that the amendment does not prejudice the other side and it does not defeat the law of limitation.
By way of amendment, the admission cannot be withdrawn by him. Non-denial of services of notice which is clear and categorical in paragraph ‘10’ of the plea amounts to admission of the petitioners regarding service of notice.
held that by way of amendment, admission contained in written statement cannot be withdrawn. But this judgment has not been followed by Supreme Court in subsequent judgments in Usha Balasahab Swami Vs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
