Balvir Singh vs Jaspal Singh

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing impugned order dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure P/5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur whereby application filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 2 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 05.09.2006 with regard to land measuring 12 kanals detailed in the headnote of the plaint. After notice to the parties, defendants filed their written statement wherein petitioner-defendant No. 2 has made an admission regarding execution of agreement to sell dated 05.09,2006 and cancellation of the same in pursuance of compromise dated 15.02.2008 entered between the parties. The issues were framed. The case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. Thereafter, petitioner/defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure P/5) by observing that the defendant cannot be allowed to amend the written statement after commencement of the trial. Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Perusal of the record clearly shows that in para No. 3 of the written statement, the petitioner-defendant No. 2 has admitted the execution of the agreement to sell dated 05.09.2006. There is specific assertion that subsequently parties had effected compromise on 15.02.2008 and the agreement in question was cancelled. The entire written statement is based on facts. The admission of the agreement and its subsequent cancellation on the basis of compromise clearly shows that averments have been made with due diligence and now the same cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. From the perusal of the entire record, it is clear that the stand was taken by the petitioner-defendant No. 2 with regard to execution of agreement to sell and subsequently its cancellation in view of the compromise.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that admission can be withdrawn at any stage is not sustainable, specifically when it goes to the root of the case and'' the entire complexion of the written statement is sought to be changed by withdrawing such admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai and Others Vs. Padmalatha and Another, , Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another, and judgments of this Court in Sagar Singh Slathia Vs. Surinder Pal Singh, , Gautam Sarup Vs. Anand Sarup and Others, and S.B. Agro Foods Nihal Singh Wala Vs. State of Punjab and Others, .

The said judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Rather, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in S. Malla Reddy Vs. Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society and Others, has held that admission made in categorical terms cannot be allowed to be withdrawn, specifically when the hearing of the suit has already commenced and the case is fixed for plaintiffs evidence.

In the present case, petitioner has made categoric admission which cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. In view of the above, 1 do not find any merit in this petition.

Dismissed.