IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1982 of 2008 RAMJI DHOBI Versus SRI RAM DHOBI & ORS ----------- 2. 28.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the approach of the court below in rejecting the prayer for amendment in the written statement does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The court below in fact has rightly repelled the malafide effort on the part of the defendant petitioner to change his entire case as with regard to the story of adoption. It may be noted that in paragraph nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 the plaintiffs had come out with a specific case of adoption by one Prasad Dhobi. When such statements were sought to be dealt in the written statement, the defendant petitioner in the original written statement had clearly admitted such deed of adoption. Therefore, the insertion of the word ‘Nahi’ in paragraph 12 of the written statement was found to be a contradictory pleading which could not have been sustained in the light of the earlier stand taken in the written statement. The 2 court below, therefore, having appreciated this aspect had rightly rejected such amendment in the written statement. Counsel for the petitioner, however, was very emphatic in his submission that such approach of the court below was absolutely vitiated by jurisdictional error and in this context he had referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.K.Narayana Pillai vs. Parameswaran Pillai & anor., reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712. This Court on perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court would find that far from helping the petitioner, the said judgment of clearly distinguishes the contradictory pleading vis-a-vis the conflicting pleading. The Apex Court as a matter of fact has drawn a line of caution that an admission made in the pleadings either in the plaint or written statement should not be allowed to be withdrawn. In the present case there was a clear admission on the part of the defendant petitioner towards the fact of adoption which is based on registered deed of the year 1947. Presumption of such adoption in fact is well 3 protected by section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. In that view of the matter, if the court below has refused such amendment in written statement this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/