LexRAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA versus SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 369 RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA v. SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIAAND OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos.7213-7214 of2015 etc.) SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 [ANIL R.DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND AMITAVA ROY,JJ.) A B Evidence Act, 1872 - Admission - Withdrawal of - C Permissibility- Suit for partition - Two of the defendants in their written statements made admissions regarding relinquishment of their right in the suit property - After 25 years, seeking amendment of written statement withdrawing their admissions- Held: A party cannot be permitted to wholly D withdraw the admission in the pleadings - However, the admission can be clarified or explained by way of amendment and the basis of admission can be attacked in a substantive proceedings - Delay by itself may not be crucial in such amendment - Therefore, the claim of defendants for E withdrawal of their admissions is rejected - However, they are given opportunity to explain/clarify their admissions. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1. The attempt to wholly resile from the admission made after twenty-five years cannot be permitted. Delay in itself may not be crucial on an application for amendment in a written statement, be it for introduction of a new fact or for explanation or G clarification of an admission or for taking an alternate position. It is seen that the issues have been framed in the present case only in 2009. The nature and character of the amendment and the other circumstances are H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 12 S.C.R. A relevant while considering the delay and its consequence on the application for amendment. But a party cannot be permitted to wholly withdraw the admission in the pleadings. However, the admission can be clarified or explained by way of amendment and the B basis of admission can be attacked in a substantive proceedings. [Paras 22, 23 and 25] [383-G-H; 384-A-B; 385-C] 2. In view of the averment in the application for C amendment and in view of the counter affidavit filed before this Court by Defendant Nos. 5 and 12, this Court does not intend to make the suit filed in the year 2005 otherwise infructuous. The application for amendment withdrawing the admissions made in the written D statement on relinquishment of the claim to the suit property by Defendant Nos. 5 and 12 is rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Defendant Nos. 5 and 12 should be given an opportunity to explain/clarify the admissions made in the written E statement. Accordingly, Defendant Nos. 5 and 12 are permitted to file an application limiting their prayer only to the extent of explaining/clarifying the disputed admissions in the written statement which will be F considered on its merits and in the light of the observations made in th.is judgment. [Paras 25, 26 and 27] [385-C-G; 386-C-B] G Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram lchharam alias Brijram and others 1974 (2) SCR 544: (1974) 1 SCC 242; Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jelly and others 2008 (4) SCR 523: (2008) 7 SCC 85- relied on. Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another (1984) Supp. SCC 594 - partly H overruled. RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA v. SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA 371 AND OTHERS Sushi/ Kumar Jain v. Mano} Kumar and another A (2009) 14 SCC 38; Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co. 1977 (1) SCR 728: (1976) 4 SCC 320; Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others 2009 (15) SCR 103: (2009) 10 SCC 84 - B referred to. Case Law Reference (1984) Supp. sec 594 partly overruled. Para 17 c (2009) 14 sec 38 referred to. Para 18 1977 (1) SCR 728 referred to. Para 19 2008 (4) SCR 523 relied on. Para 20 D 2009 (15) SCR 103 referred to. Para 21 197 4 (2) SCR 544 relied on. Para 23 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. E 7213 & 7214 of2015 From the Judgment and Order No. dated 09.09.2010 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in APO No. 324 of 2008 arising out of Partition Suit being No. C.S. No. 696 of 1978, GA. No. 297 of 2004 F WITH C. A. No. 7215 of 2015 Vijay Hansaria, K. Datta, Abinav Hansaria, Ra haul· G Malhotra, PraveenAgrawal,Abhay Kumar, Rahul Malhotra, Niti Arora for the Appellant. Pradip Kumar Dutta, Debnath Ghosh, (for Abhijit Sengupta), Partha Sil, Tavish B. Prasad for the Respondents. H • 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Whether
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.