Partly allowed

Smt. Naseema Begum v. Chote Ram

Uttarakhand HC1 May 2013CLR/108/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court of Uttarakhand quashed a trial court order allowing an amendment to a written statement that sought to withdraw specific admissions. The Court held that withdrawing explicit admissions is impermissible unless due to clerical error, while clarifying amendments were affirmed.

What did the court decide?

The order allowing the amendment to negate specific admissions was set aside and the application dismissed on that count; the order allowing clarifying amendments was affirmed.

Smt. Naseema Begum Vs Chote Ram — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Civil Revision No. 108 of 2012

¶3

Smt. Naseema Begum W/o Shri Haji Meharban R/o Village Mohitpur, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee District Hardwar

¶4

…...... Plaintiff/Revisionist

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chote Ram S/o Shri Banwarilal R/o Village Khanpur, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee District Hardwar presently residing at House No. E-107 Shivalik Colony, phase 1, Hardwar, Tehsil and District Hardwar

¶7

…....Defendant /Respondent

¶8

Shri Siddhartha Singh, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Shri B.B.Sharma, Advocate, present for the respondent.

¶9

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

(2) This revision is directed against the order dated 19.11.2012, passed by Civil Judge Senior Division,

¶12

¶13

Roorkee, District Hardwar, in Original Suit No. 14 of 2012, whereby said court has allowed the amendment application 23A for amendment in the written statement moved by the defendant in the suit.

¶14

(3) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Naseema Begum has filed a Suit No. 14 of 2012 for specific performance of contract entered between the parties to the suit. It appears that the written statement was filed on 16.03.2012, by the defendant before the trial court in which contents paragraph 1 to paragraph 3 E of the plaint were admitted. Rest of the pleadings were denied by the defendant.

¶15

(4) An amendment application 23A was moved by the defendant on 01.05.2012, in which it was prayed that the defendant be allowed to add word “ not ” before word “ admitted ” in para 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the written statement. Also, the defendant sought to add paragraphs 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D and 22E in the written statement to make the pleadings clear.

¶16

(5) The plaintiff opposed the amendment application and filed the written objections before the trial court in which it was specifically stated that the amendment sought to be made cannot be allowed,

¶17

¶18

and the defendant cannot be permitted to withdraw the admissions specifically made by him in different paragraphs.

¶19

(6) However, the trial court allowed the amendment application, consequently this revision is filed.

¶20

(7) Perusal of the copy of the plaint which is annexed as Annexure 2 to the affidavit filed with the revision shows that the defendant has specifically admitted the contents of para 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E of the plaint in the paragraphs No. 1 to 8 of the written statement. It is settled principle of law that where the party has admitted pleadings of the opposite party specifically it cannot be allowed to withdraw the same unless such admission has occurred on account of clerical error. Had there been omission to mention word “ not” before the word “ admitted” in one of the paragraphs in the written statement, it could have been said that the same was inadvertently could not be mentioned. But in the present case in as many as five paragraphs, the admission made has been sought to be withdrawn by the defendant by adding word “ not ” in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the written statement. In the opinion of this Court, the trial court has erred in law

¶21

¶22

in allowing the amendment in the written statement as prayed in para 1 of the amendment application to withdraw such admissions. But with regard to the amendments sought and allowed to add paragraphs 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D and 22E to clarify the pleadings of the defendant in the written statement, there appears no illegality committed by the trial court in allowing the same.

¶23

(8) For the reasons as discussed above, this revision is disposed of with the direction that the impugned order dated 19.11.2012, so far as it pertains to allowing of the amendment prayed in para -1 of the Amendment Application whereby word “ not ” has been allowed to be added in paragraph 3 to 8 to the written statement, is hereby set aside. To that extent, the amendment application 23A moved before the trial court shall stand dismissed. However, so far as, the amendment allowed to be made by the defendant to add paragraphs 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D and 22E in the written statement to clarify pleadings, the same requires no interference and to that extent the impugned order is affirmed.

¶24

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

¶25

Dt.01.05.2013 N.P

Smt. Naseema Begum v. Chote Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Naseema Begum v. Chote Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Preeti Verma Vs Additional Family Court Roorkee and Another

Smt. Mamta Joshi Gahtori Vs Kamal Chandra Gahtori

Smt Pavitra Devi and Others Vs Sudhir Prasad Lakhera and Others

Pal Singh and Ors. Vs Karam Singh Negi and Ors.

Shoorveer Singh Vs Hira Singh and Others

Munshi Mewa Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand