The Allahabad High Court held that expressions made in the pleadings could not be withdrawn by way of an amendment application and a typographical error was not grounds enough for the withdrawal of a written statement.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed a case in the small causes court in which the revisionists had filed a written statement on 05.02.2014. Thereafter, it was found that due to a typographical error, the documents annexed with the written statement contained the word 'tenant' rather than the phrase 'license deed'.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondents have filed S.C.C. Case No. 34 of 2013 in which the revisionist has filed a written statement on 05.02.2014 admitting the tenancy. After a change of counsel, it was found that the documents so annexed along with the written statement have a ‘license deed’, but due to typographical error, it is mentioned as ‘tenant’. He next submitted that after the change of counsel, an amendment application dated 23.03.2022 has been moved under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for the substitution of the word, ‘licensee’ in place of the word, ‘tenant’ which was rejected on the ground that first of all any admission made in written statement cannot be withdrawn. Secondly; change of counsel cannot be a ground to allow amendment application at a very belated stage. Further, the condition of due diligence has also not been satisfied. He firmly submitted that the Apex Court has categorically held that a liberal view is required to be taken while deciding amendment applications.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent once any admission is given in the written statement, same cannot be withdrawn. Further, it was submitted that even in case of a typographical error in a written statement, admission cannot be withdrawn and so far as change of counsel is concerned, that can also not be ground at a very belated stage.
Observations of the court:
The court held that facts of the case such as the date of filing of suit, written statement and amendment application were not under dispute and contrary to the contentions of the revisionist, expressions made in the pleadings could not be withdrawn by way of an amendment application. Further, the court stated that a typographical error was not grounds enough for the withdrawal of a written statement.
The court stated that a change of counsel cannot be a ground to file an amendment application bypassing the rigorous conditions of due diligence. In fact, to meet out any mistake, no advantage can be given to the litigant due to change of counsel and further, in the present case, facts are undisputed that due to typographical error as well as change of counsel, amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been filed to withdraw the admission earlier made in written submissions, which cannot be permitted in the light of law laid down by the Courts from time to time.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Mahendra Pratap Singh vs Rama Raman and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Neeraj Tiwari
Case No.: S.C.C. REVISION No. - 38 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ashwini Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Girish Kumar Gupta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
