Dismissed

Sukhmander Singh and Another v. Jagsir Kaur and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2009CR/1843/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge to an order refusing an amendment to a written statement. The court held that despite cited principles allowing withdrawal of wrongful admissions, the defendants' failure to provide a satisfactory basis for denying the admitted factum years after the suit barred the relief.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sukhmander Singh and Another Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No. 1843 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

Civil Revision No. 1843 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.7.2009

¶6

Sukhmander Singh and another --- Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jagsir Kaur and another --- Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. A.K. Khungar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Samir Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is for setting aside the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar whereby an application moved by Sukhmander Singh, petitioner No.1, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

¶16

It was averred in the application for amendment that in the written statement filed by him and his co-defendants, Resham Singh and Sadhu Singh, to the suit for declaration filed by plaintiffJasbir Kaur, due to mistake of the typist the contents of para No.2 of

¶17

¶18

Civil Revision No. 1843 of 2008

¶19

the plaint came to be admitted inadvertently whereas in fact, the defendants wanted to admit only the factum to the extent that Balkar Singh alias Phulel Singh had expired in the year 1986, and rest of the contents of the said para were wrong and were to be denied.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that due to the aforesaid inadvertent mistake on the part of the typist a wrong fact pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff-Jasbir Kaur is daughter of Balkar Singh alias Phulel Singh stood admitted whereas in fact, she is the daughter of one Harbans Singh. The counsel submitted that amendment of the written statement sought by the defendantpetitioner is necessary to bring on record the true facts which will also enable the court to properly adjudicate the controversy raised in the suit. It was further submitted by the counsel that a party has a right to plead that the admission made by it was erroneous and also that an admission wrongly made can be explained away and withdrawn. In support of the above submission, the counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in Santokh Singh v. Harcharan Singh, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 19 and Punna Ram v. Balkar Singh, 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 628.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel and considering the submissions, I find that the same are misconceived. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, but the same do not help the petitioners in any manner. In the present case, the suit was filed in the year 2002 and the defendants filed written statement many years back admitting the factum that the plaintiff is daughter of Balkar Singh alias Phulel Singh.

¶22

¶23

Civil Revision No. 1843 of 2008

¶24

Thereafter, an application was made in the year 2005 for amendment of the written statement and in spite of repeated queries put to the counsel by this Court as to what was the basis for denying the factum that the plaintiff is the daughter of Balkar Singh alias Phulel Singh, he had not been able to give any answer, much less a satisfactory one. The counsel only and repeatedly emphasized that a wrong admission of a fact or an admission made erroneously can always be permitted to be withdrawn. As observed above, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel. Each case has to be viewed in the light of the facts and circumstances pleaded therein and the acceptance of a prayer in a particular case cannot be made a tool to be applied in all cases ipso facto.

¶25

In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is consequently dismissed.

¶26

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) July 21, 2009 JUDGE RKMALIK

Sukhmander Singh and Another v. Jagsir Kaur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sukhmander Singh and Another v. Jagsir Kaur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S Aggarwal Const. Co. and Anr.

Manju Vs Dinesh Dahiya

Sandeep Garg Vs Ganga Ram and Ors.

Singhpura Coop House Building Society Ltd. Vs Alamjit Singh Maan and Anr.

Jitender Sharma Vs Jai Parkash Kaushik and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs Chaju Ram and Anr.