Civil Revision No.3068 of 2010(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.3068 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : January 27, 2011 Bakshish Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Smt.Raj Rani and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sameer Sachdeva and Mr.Jastej Singh, Advocates for respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition assails the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri allowing the application of the respondents for amendment of the written statement. In the application filed by the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 (respondents No.1 to 5 before this Court), they pleaded that in the earlier written statement filed by them, they had admitted the claim of the plaintiff in toto, but they have sought amendment of the written statement on the ground that the said admissions were due to misrepresentation by the plaintiff, as they had told that the shop situated in Sabji Mandi and the house situated in Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar have Civil Revision No.3068 of 2010(O&M) [ 2 ] come to their share. Thus, believing them in good faith, they admitted the claim of the plaintiff. However, it was found to be false as later, they came to know that the plaintiff has exploited their faith and by playing fraud upon them, he had got their admissions made, which are factually incorrect. Now, they want to state that no family settlement had taken place on 3.6.1995. The alleged family settlement does not bear the signature of their predecessor, namely Amarjit Singh and that the same is a forged and fabricated document. In fact, in the oral family settlement between the plaintiff on the one side and respondents No.1 to 5 on the other side as also respondent No.6, it was settled that the house situated in Model Colony and the shop in Sabji Mandi, Yamuna Nagar would belong to them and the House No.516 at Model Colony would fall to the share of the petitioner and the two plots situated at Patiala would fall to the share of respondent Nos.1 to 5. Thus, by way of the amendment, so allowed by the Trial Court, respondents No.1 to 5 want to withdraw the admissions. The question of validity and existence of the alleged family settlement dated 3.6.1995 is a question of fact, to be proved by evidence independently. The respondents No.1 to 5 while withdrawing the admissions have levelled allegations of fraud over the petitioner as well as his counsel. It is also well settled by now that the admissions could be explained by way of amendment. It was observed in case Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly & others, 2008(1) RCR(Rent) 487 that though a person cannot be permitted to resile from admissions, yet it would be permissible for him to explain under what circumstances the same had been made or it was made under a Civil Revision No.3068 of 2010(O&M) [ 3 ] mistaken belief or to clarify one's stand, inter-alia, in regard to the extent or effect of such admission. It was further held that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from, but in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. In similar circumstances, this Court in case Nathu Ram vs. Ram Chander and others 2007(5) RCR(Civil) 386 observed as under:- “4. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court that defendant No.6 has not been able to show as to whether signatures were obtained on the blank papers by the counsel cannot be accepted as in fact no opportunity was granted to the defendant No.6 to prove such fact. Such fact could be proved by defendant No.6 only if he was permitted to file written statement subject to the proof of the fact that first written statement was not filed with intention of filing of such written statement. In 1992(1) RRR 13 : (1991-2) 100 PLR 266, Gujjar Singh v. Gulzar Singh this Court has permitted the defendant to amend the written statement which has the effect of withdrawing the admission. It was found that the admission earlier made in the written statement was apparently erroneous and on assumed facts and in such a situation a party cannot be refused to amend its pleadings. Similarly, in 1991(2) RRR 306 : (1991-2) 100 PLR 616, Kehar Singh v. Balraj Singh and another, this Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint as it was found that if the plaintiff is not given opportunity to back out of the wrong admission, he would not be able to show Civil Revision No.3068 of 2010(O&M) [ 4 ] that the admission was wrong. 1992(2) RRR 328 : 1992(2) Revenue Law Reporter 11, Mukhtiar Kaur & Piar Kaur v. Jarnail Singh, was a case where the defendant filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. The statement of the defendant was also recorded wherein he admitted the plaintiff's claim, but before the adjourned date of hearing, defendant died and his legal heirs made an application for bringing on record as legal representatives of the deceased and subsequently filed an application for amendment of the written statement. In revision petition, this Court found that the learned Trial Court should have gone into the question as to whether an impostor was put in place of the defendant to appear in the Court, filed the written statement and admitted the claim on behalf of the said defendant. The said question could either be decided in a fresh suit or in the said suit. This Court directed the trial Court to decide the question as to whether impostor was put in place of the defendant to file written statement or to make statement in the Court. 5. Recently, in a judgment reported as 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 248 : (2006-3) 144 PLR 437, Gautam Sarup v. Anand Sarup and others, considering the various judgments, it was found that the defendant has a right to prove that the admission made in the written statement is not correct and erroneous. However, to prove that such admission is not correct and is erroneous, an opportunity has to be given to the said defendant. Civil Revision No.3068 of 2010(O&M) [ 5 ] It was so held in the following manner: “Keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the opinion that defendant No.6 has a right to prove that the admission made in the written statement dated 30.03.2000 is not correct and erroneous. If a person proves that the admission is not binding for one or more reason, the Court can refuse to take into consideration the admission allegedly made. Such rights to prove admission wrongly made can be exercised only if an opportunity is given to the parties to enter into the play field and to prove such admission as wrong, incorrect and erroneous. If the amendment is to be declined, an opportunity to prove that the admission is wrong is not even made available which, in my opinion, would be unjustified.” 6. In view of the above judgments, I deem it appropriate to allow the petitioner to amend the written statement. However, it shall be open to the trial Court to adjudicate upon the question along with main suit itself whether the first written statement filed by the present petitioner admitting the claim of the plaintiff, was a voluntary act or not and in the light of the said finding to decide the main suit.” Thus, while deriving the ratio from the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Trial Court Civil Revision No.3068 of 2010(O&M) [ 6 ] was not incorrect. From perusal of the verification made in the previous written statement, it transpires that it was never verified by all the respondents, as projected in the written statement. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. January 27, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE