IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2165 of 2008 SUKHDEO SHARMA & ANR Versus MANNU SHARMA ----------- 2 12/1/2009 Heard counsel for the defendant- petitioners and counsel for the plaintiff- opposite party. Initially the defendant-petitioners in their written statement had admitted Khakhari Devi to be mother of the plaintiff. That is the impression one gets from paragraph 9 of the written statement. Based on their pleadings and there being no dispute on that score, the court below proceeded on an admitted fact of Khakhari Devi being mother of the plaintiff, no separate issue was framed by the court below. The defendant-petitioners in fact thereafter had led their evidence on all the issues, but late on realizing some difficulty they had sought to introduce a new fact in their evidence without there being any pleadings that Khakhari Devi was not mother of the plaintiff rather she was mother like person. Conveniently, the defendant-petitioners had found at least one paragraph in their written statement, 2 i.e, paragraph no. 22 wherein they could have wriggled out for this purpose and they after the parties had led their evidence and the case was pending for argument, an ingenious prayer came for amendment in the written statement in the light of the evidence led by the defendant-petitioners beyond pleadings. The court below having noticed that such amendment was not only aimed to take away certain admission already made by the defendant-petitioners in their written statement as also could lead to reopening of the proceedings from the initial stage by framing additional issue, has rejected the prayer for amendment in the written statement. Mr. Mukundjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the plaintiff-opposite party was not taken by surprise because even if these facts were not stated in the written statement the defendant- petitioners in course of examination of two witnesses have tried to explain that Khakhari Devi was not the mother of the 3 plaintiff. He would submit that in that view of the matter the court below ought to have not rejected the prayer for amendment in the written statement. Mr. S.M.Sabbir Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party would submit that the very fact that there was no dispute in the written statement as with regard to relationship of plaintiff with Khakhari Devi, the plaintiff had never adduced any evidence on this issue and in fact when some effort was made by leading evidence by the defendant-petitioners on this issue in course of examination of their witnesses that was fully ignored because it was well settled that any evidence adduced beyond the pleadings cannot be taken on records. He would further submit that in view of the statement made in paragraph 9 of the written statement admitting the relationship of Khakhari Devi as the mother of the plaintiff there was hardly any scope for the defendant- petitioners to take a contrary stand and in fact the whole amendment is rather 4 malafide and has been aimed to take away the admissions already made both in course of pleadings as also during deposition of the plaintiff. This Court, having taken into account the aforementioned submissions as also on perusal of the entire written statement, is of the view that a complete contradictory stand after making definite admission in the written statement, was sought to be taken by the defendant- petitioners that too at the very belated stage. The whole issue, in fact, can be gone into from yet another angle as to what was the stage for allowing amendment in the written statement and whether liberal approach of the Court for allowing amendment in the written statement can be also extended to the concept of taking complete volte face even in respect of a fact which was never initially disputed rather was actually admitted. If on that basis the defendants are given an unfettered liberty to keep on amending the written statement, this would lead to an 5 unending situation in the conclusion of the suit. The whole sprit of the Code of Civil Procedure aims to get the case decided within the time frame that too under a fixed procedure. It is this aspect of the matter which will be of prime importance in a case like this where admission on the part of the defendant- petitioners that khakhari Devi to be mother of the plaintiff is unequivocal and has led to leading of the evidence by the plaintiff-opposite party taking it to be an admitted fact. That admission now cannot be withdrawn and such amendment cannot in written statement cannot be allowed. That being so, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly this Civil Revision Application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar