Amar Pal Singh vs The Additional District Judge ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6527 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Amar Pal Singh vs The Additional District Judge ... on 26 March, 2025

Author: Pankaj Bhatia

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17453
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1245 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Amar Pal Singh
 
Respondent :- The Additional District Judge Sultanpur And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.C.Mukerjee,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,I.D.Shukla,S.K.Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
 

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents.

2. The present petition arises out of a challenge to an order whereby the amendment application filed by the defendant in the written statement was allowed by the revisional court.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a suit in which, the possession of a property, as detailed in the plaint, was sought. In para 13 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the house in question was constructed by the father of the plaintiff during his lifetime and was in possession along with his wife and two children and the plaintiff was the sole heir. The said pleading was denied in the written statement to the extent that the mother and father of the plaintiff had constructed the house in question. Subsequently, an amendment was sought in the said written statement in para 13, wherein it was sought that in place of the father, it should be the name of the mother of the plaintiff which should be included. The said amendment application was rejected by the trial court, however, the revisional court was of the view that the said amendment would not change the nature of the pleadings.

4. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that once, there is a admission in the written statement, the same cannot be resiled by filing an amendment application.

5. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Buddhan Devi and others vs. IVth Additional District Judge, Jaunpur and others; (2007) 25 LCD 185 wherein it has been held that the admission cannot be withdrawn through amendment, however, the said judgment would have no applicability to the facts of the present case as, the pleading and amendment in the written statement would not affect the rights of the plaintiff which had to be established on their own footings.

6. I do not see any reason to interfere with the revisional order.

7. The petition is dismissed. The suit No.65 of 2000, if pending before the court below, shall be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 26.3.2025

VNP/-