Dismissed¶¶41

Rajindra Yadav v. Sheo Shankar Prasad and Ors.

Patna HC17 Jun 2025C.Misc./1689/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of written statement; withdrawal of specific admission; correction of typographical mistake — year of death of Juthan Ahir (1951 vs 1961); amendment sought after commencement of trial without due diligence; Title Suit No. 253 of 2010; Sub Judge-VIth, Bettiah, West Champaran; Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1689 of 2017; Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., AIR 1977 SC 680 (relied on); impugned order affirmed; petition dismissed; single judge (Arun Kumar Jha, J); decided 17-06-2025.

What did the court decide?

When there is a specific admission in the written statement (admitting the plaintiff's case that Juthan Ahir died in the year 1951), the same could not be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment. ¶¶36

Rajindra Yadav Vs Sheo Shankar Prasad and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether a specific admission made by the defendant in the written statement regarding the year of death of Juthan Ahir (1951) could be withdrawn or altered by way of amendment of the written statement. +2 more

¶¶31

Court's answer

When there is a specific admission in the written statement (admitting the plaintiff's case that Juthan Ahir died in the year 1951), the same could not be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The amendment was sought after commencement of trial without any due diligence on the part of the defendant/petitioner and without any reason or explanation for bringing it at a later stage; on this ground, along with the admission point, the proposed amendment could not be allowed.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

Although the trial court did not assign reasons, its rejection of the part amendment does not suffer from any infirmity and is fortified by the reasons given by this Court.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, C.Misc. No.1689 of 2017, coram Arun Kumar Jha, J; oral order dated 17-06-2025. The petitioner, defendant in Title Suit No. 253 of 2010 before the Sub Judge-VIth, Bettiah, West Champaran, challenged the order dated 28.06.2017 rejecting his part amendment to the written statement, which sought correction of a typographical error changing the year of death of one Juthan Ahir from 1951 to 1961. Held: (i) the plaint (paragraph no.2) specifically stated that Juthan Ahir died in 1951 and the written statement (paragraph no.6) admitted it; a specific admission could not be allowed to be withdrawn, as per Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., AIR 1977 SC 680; (ii) the amendment had been sought after commencement of trial without due diligence and without any reason or explanation for the delay, and on these two points could not be allowed; (iii) the trial court's failure to mention reasons did not render the rejection infirm, which stood fortified by the High Court's own reasoning. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, affirmed it, and dismissed the petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1689 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Rajindra Yadav Son of late Ramjeee Yadav Resident of Village-Semari Bhawanipur P.S. Nawalpur Jogapatti District West Champaran

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sheo Shankar Prasad Son of late Mahadev Prasad, Resident of VillageSemari Bhawanipur P.S. Nawalpur Jogapatti District West Champaran

¶7

Jagarnath Yadav Son of late Jadu Yadav Resident of Village-Dhabelwa, P.O. P.S. Nawalpur District West Champaran.

¶8

Nathuni Yadav

¶9

Hira Yadav.

¶10

Dhurup Yadav. Son of late Prayag Yadav.

¶11

Sandesh Yadav Son of late Khira Yadav

¶12

Lalita Devi

¶13

Radhika Devi Wives of Late Mahanth Yadav

¶14

Manoj Yadav Son of late Mahanth Yadav

¶15

Premshila Kumari D/o Late Mahanth Yadav.

¶16

Panna Lal Yadav

¶17

Gagandeo Yadav

¶18

Birjhan Yadav. Sons of late Ramjee Yadav. Serial no. 3 to 13 Resident of Village-Semari Bhawanipur P.O. P.S. Nawalpur Jogapatti District West Champaran.

¶19

Kalahi Devi D/o Late Juthan Yadav Wife of Mahabir Yadav Resident of Village-Salahan Bariyawa, P.s. Chautrwa District West Champaran.

¶20

... ... Respondent/s

¶21

======================================================

¶22

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Thakur, Advocate ======================================================

¶23

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶24

3 17-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

¶26

28.06.2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge-VIth, Bettiah, West

¶27

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1689 of 2017(3) dt.17-06-2025 2/5

¶28

Champaran in Title Suit No. 253 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the part amendment in written statement filed on behalf of the defendant/petitioner.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has passed the order against the fact and law. The learned trial court rejected the part amendment without assigning any reason. The petitioner has sought to bring the amendment in connection with typographical error but the learned trial court did not consider this fact and further failed to consider that the year of death of one Juthan Ahir was not in issue between the parties. The learned trial court further failed to consider that the proposed amendment relates to correction of typographical mistake of year of death of one Juthan Ahir from 1951 to 1961 which was not like withdrawing any admission and was merely correction in the typing mistake. Such correction would not change the nature of the suit and would not cause prejudice to the other side in any manner. Correction in the year of death of Juthan Ahir is only to place the correct fact before the court and has no other significance. Therefore, the learned trial court committed an error in rejecting the amendment with regard to correction in the year of death of Juthan Ahir.

¶30

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1689 of 2017(3) dt.17-06-2025 3/5

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same has been passed considering the fact and law on the point of amendment. Learned counsel further submits that the amendment has been sought after closure of evidence of the plaintiff and at the time of the evidence of the defendant but without showing any due diligence as to why the amendment could not be brought earlier. Learned counsel further submits that the defendant/petitioner wants to withdraw an admission with regard to year of death of Juthan Ahir as it is the specific case of the plaintiff that Juthan Ahir died in the year 1951 and the same was admitted by the defendant/petitioner. Therefore, the defendant/petitioner could not be allowed to withdraw the specific admission by way of amendment. Further, no material has been brought on record to show the death of Juthan Ahir occurred in the year 1961 and not in the year 1951 which has already been admitted. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order does not need any interference by this Court.

¶32

Perused the record.

¶33

Having regard to the rival submission of the parties

¶34

and on consideration of the material available on record, it is

¶35

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1689 of 2017(3) dt.17-06-2025 4/5

¶36

clear from the copy of plaint that there is specific case of the plaintiff in paragraph no.2 that Juthan Ahir died in the year 1951. The same was admitted by the defendant/petitioner in paragraph no.6. When there is specific admission, the same could not be allowed to be withdrawn. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Ladha Ram & Co. reported in AIR 1977 SC 680 ., held that once an admission is made in respect of certain status, it is not open to the other party to wriggle out of such a situation by retracting or withdrawing from the said admission which would be detrimental to the interest of the other side. Further the amendment has been sought after commencement of trial without showing any due diligence on part of the defendant/petitioner that despite his best effort he could not have sought the amendment earlier in time. There is no reason or explanation for bringing the amendment at a later stage after commencement of trial. On these two points, the proposed amendment could not be allowed. Though the learned trial court has not mentioned any reasons but the rejection of part amendment does not suffer from any infirmity and is fortified by the reasons given by this Court.

¶37