C.R. No. 20 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 20 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.07.2010 Rajinder Singh & others .......... Petitioners Versus Sat Pal Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.7 **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.10.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dhuri, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff / petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint stands declined. The plaintiff / petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.10.2004, said to have been executed by the defendant / respondents for sale of 1 Bigha 11 Biswas of land. In the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiff / petitioners, that prior to executing the agreement to sell dated 13.10.2004, there was an agreement executed between the parties on 18.8.2004 for C.R. No. 20 of 2009 -2- sale of 74 Bigha 11 Biswas of land, out of which sale deed qua 73 Biswas was executed and the remaining land thereafter was agreed to be sold by way of agreement dated 13.10.2004. The suit is contested by the defendants / respondents. The agreement to sell was not disputed. When application was moved by the defendant / respondents under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of the agreement dated 11.8.2004, the plaintiffs woke up, and filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint to withdraw the averments made regarding the agreement dated 11.8.2004 being unnecessary. The ground for amendment was, that the plaintiffs / petitioners were seeking enforcement of the agreement dated 13.10.2004, therefore, the averments with regard to the agreement dated 11.8.2004 being superfluous were needed to be deleted. The application was contested. The learned trial Court dismissed the application moved by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint, on the ground that the application moved amounts to withdrawal of an admission qua the agreement dated 11.8.2004, therefore, can not be permitted. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended, that the learned trial Court was wrong in rejecting the application merely on the ground that an admission could not be allowed to be withdrawn, and that this finding cannot be sustained, in view of the settled law, that admission can be withdrawn or explained away. There is not a complete bar to C.R. No. 20 of 2009 -3- withdraw an admission made by the party. On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Sidhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 by placing on record the agreement dated 13.10.2004, on the basis of which the suit has been filed, contended that the averments made by the plaintiff / respondents were not outcome of fraud or misrepresentation, but were based on the fact, as in the agreement dated 13.10.2004, it is mentioned, that there was an earlier agreement between the parties dated 11.8.2004. Therefore, averment amounting to admission of a fact could not be allowed to be withdrawn on mere asking, without giving good reasons thereof. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for respondent No.7 placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly and others 2008(7) SCC 85, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- “22. What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive of each other.” On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.7. Though, there is not a C.R. No. 20 of 2009 -4- complete bar to withdrawal of admission or explaining it by amendment, but there should be strong reasons for it. The party cannot be allowed to withdraw an admission merely on the asking or for the reason that party asserting a fact finds difficulty in proving it. In the present case, the factum of agreement dated 11.8.2004 was specifically incorporated in the agreement dated 13.10.2004, on the basis of which, the suit has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the application moved for amendment of the plaint. For the reasons stated, finding no merit, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs. 12.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE