Civil Revision No.2919 of 2005 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.2919 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : July 02, 2009 Mahender Singh and others ... Petitioners VERSUS Pawan Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.M.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The defendants – petitioners (herein referred as petitioners) have assailed the order dated 29.1.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Palwal declining their application for amendment of the written statement. Factual background of the case is that the plaintiffs – respondents (herein referred as respondents) claimed rights over the property of Ran Lal s/o Jorawar, on the basis of a Will dated 23.1.1992. It was averred by the petitioners that deceased Ran Lal never executed the alleged Will in favour of the respondents and had settled certain portion of the property i.e. 16 Kanals in favour of defendants No.1 to 3. It has been further averred that the remaining estate of Ran Lal devolved upon his Civil Revision No.2919 of 2005 [ 2 ] natural heirs vide Mutation No.3092 sanctioned on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1997 passed in an earlier suit. It was also averred that defendant No.6 Raj Pal, who is the grand-father of the plaintiffs, was also a party to the said mutation proceedings of inheritance. Now, the respondents, by way of the present suit, have assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1997 and also the aforesaid mutation. The defendant No.6, grand-father of the plaintiffs (contesting respondents) in connivance with the remaining respondents (proforma respondents) have got filed a written statement of admissions, which they never intended to file. Now, the said admissions made by them are illegal and contrary to the facts. As such, the petitioners – defendants want to amend the written statement for contesting the suit. Petition has been contested by the respondents. Besides, certain preliminary objections, it was also submitted that written statement admitting the claim of the respondents had been filed way back on 23.5.2001. As such, now they cannot withdraw the admissions made in the written statement, because by such withdrawal, the nature of the suit shall change. The Trial Court while taking the view that the petitioners cannot resile from the earlier admissions made by them, dismissed the application. Arguments heard. Record perused. First of all, it may be noticed that the evidence has not commenced as issues are yet to be framed. General view is taken that intentional admissions made by the parties in the pleadings cannot be allowed to be withdrawn, but at the same Civil Revision No.2919 of 2005 [ 3 ] time, it is also settled view that the admissions made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away, therefore, by an amendment, an admission of fact can be withdrawn in order to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. It is also settled that the admissions against facts can be withdrawn at any time and it is not necessary for the applicant to disclose the reason as to why he wants to withdraw or abandon such facts. A similar point arose in case Bant Singh vs. Kuldeep Singh and another, 1995(1) The Punjab Law Reporter 214. If a party withdrawing the admissions alleged fraud and manipulation upon them in obtaining the admissions, then the party was at liberty to take such plea. A similar view was taken in case Harwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others 2004 (3) The Punjab Law Reporter 126 = 2004 AIHC 4320 and M/s Mahendra Radio and Television, Meerut and another vs. State Bank of India, AIR 1988 Allahabad 257, wherein it was observed that an admission in the written statement, which is not the one on which the plaintiff could rely or which would bind the defendant or create a right in favour of the plaintiff, could not be disallowed to be amended. If any willful admissions are being withdrawn or the withdrawal was wrong, then the same could be examined by the Court at the time of arguments. In the present case, the petitioners – defendants have specifically pleaded that the written statement was got filed by defendant No.6, who is the grand-father of the respondents – plaintiffs by way of playing fraud upon them and in connivance with the respondents. Since the reason for withdrawal of written admission has duly been explained and such admissions are said to be against facts, therefore, there is no embargo Civil Revision No.2919 of 2005 [ 4 ] upon the defendants to withdraw such admissions and file the written statement for contesting the suit. Anyway, still the petitioners would prove that the admissions so made in the written statements were against the facts. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the case and has outrightly dismissed the application on the assumption that the petitioners could not be allowed to withdraw the admissions, once made. The Court should not generally take such impression, but should look into the facts and circumstances, in which the written statement had been filed and why such admissions are being withdrawn. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioners – defendants are allowed to file amended written statement, however, the impact of the amendment/withdrawal of admissions, will be seen at the time of conclusion of the trial. July 02, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE