Civil Revision No. 6133 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6133 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 4th, 2011 Harkesh and others .... Petitioners Versus Rama Nand and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 8.9.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal vide which the application of defendants No. 5 and 6, named Rama Nand and Smt. Munni filed under section 151 CPC permitting them to withdraw the written statement dated 20.12.2008 and to contest the suit on merits was allowed. In the suit brought by Amar Singh and others, the plaintiffs, for declaration, defendants No. 5 and 6 had filed a written statement admitting their claim. Their statement was also recorded in the court. Before a decree could be passed in favour of the Civil Revision No. 6133 of 2011 2 .. plaintiffs and against defendants No.5 and 6 on the strength of that written statement, defendants No.5 and 6 had brought an application for withdrawing that written statement and for permission to contest the suit on merits. Defendants No.5 and 6 have claimed that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit. According to them, the plaintiffs came to the house of defendants No.5 and 6 and told them that they have filed a suit for partition of the said land in the court and on 20.12.2008, a Lok Adalat is going to the held. They further represented to defendants No.5 and 6 that for effecting partition of the suit land, they will have to make a statement before the court and for that purpose, plaintiffs got signed some blank papers from defendants No.5 and 6. They have claimed themselves to be illiterate persons who do not know English. They have claimed that they wanted to contest the suit on merits. They have also submitted that they would suffer an irreparable loss and injury if their written statement and statement are not permitted to be withdrawn and they may not be permitted to contest the suit on merits. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. They have pleaded the principle of estoppel in defence to the prayer made by defendants No.5 and 6. It is denied that defendants No.5 and 6 are owners in possession of the suit land. It is also denied that the plaintiffs came to their house and told them about any partition of the suit property. The entire story set up by defendants No.5 and Civil Revision No. 6133 of 2011 3 .. 6 is said to be false and frivolous. They have denied that they obtained signatures or thumb impressions of defendants No.5 and 6 on blank papers. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal allowed the application and permitted defendants No.5 and 6 to contest the suit on merits. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiffs have brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Gorakh Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that defendants No.5 and 6 could not be permitted to withdraw the admission, they made in favour of the plaintiffs. According to him, the written statement was filed by them through Shri R.S.Bainsla, Advocate. According to him, in the presence of their counsel, their statement was recorded in the court in support of the written statement of admission. According to him, the defendants No.5 and 6 had come to the court with the prayer to withdraw the admission in written statement and the statement on the plea of fraud. According to him, learned trial court should have framed an issue on the plea of fraud and should have taken evidence and then decided the matter. He has submitted that the course adopted by learned trial court is not legal. Defendants No.5 and 6 are Rama Nand and Smt. Munni, children of Smt. Angoori. The disputed property had been joint Civil Revision No. 6133 of 2011 4 .. property of the parties and this fact is not disputed before me. If they had voluntarily filed written statement of admission and suffered statement in support of the contents thereof, there was no reason for them to go again to the court with the prayer of withdrawal of that admission. An admission that cannot be withdrawn is not an admission of this kind. Here, the entire claim against defendants No.5 and 6 had been admitted by filing written statement of admission. The prayer made in the application filed under section 151 CPC is for withdrawal of that statement of admission and for permission to contest the case on merits. When defendants No.5 and 6 claim that they had been misled by the plaintiffs, no trial on this point was required to be held. The written statement of admission would remain there on the record itself and defendants No.5 and 6 would be available for being questioned on their filing the written statement of admission. The plaintiffs would also have an opportunity to examine Shri R.S.Bainsla, the counsel through whom the written statement of admission was filed and in whose presence, their statement was recorded. In these circumstances, I do not find the impugned order to suffer from any illegality. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 4th, 2011 som