Introduction:

In the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Rama Raman and Others [S.C.C. REVISION No. – 38 of 2024], the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed a significant legal principle: admissions made in written statements cannot be withdrawn through amendments, even in instances of typographical errors or a change in legal representation. This decision underscores the rigidity of procedural law and the high threshold required to alter admissions in legal pleadings.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The revisionists contended that a typographical error had occurred in their written statement filed on February 5, 2014. The documents annexed mistakenly referred to the term ‘tenant’ instead of ‘license deed.’ Following a change in counsel, the revisionists sought to correct this error by filing an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). They argued that this amendment was necessary to reflect the true nature of the relationship and that such a correction was essential for the fair adjudication of the case.

The revisionist’s counsel drew upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, advocating for a liberal approach towards amendment applications. They argued that amendments should be allowed to ensure the real issues between parties are effectively adjudicated. Moreover, they stressed that the typographical error should not bind the parties permanently to an erroneous admission.

The opposite party firmly opposed the amendment application, citing the precedent that once an admission is made in a written statement, it cannot be withdrawn. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Niranjan Kajaria and Others v. Jugal Kishore Kajaria, which held that categorical admissions in pleadings could not be retracted through amendments.

Further, they argued that typographical errors do not warrant the withdrawal of admissions and emphasized that the timing of the amendment application, coupled with the change in counsel, did not meet the due diligence requirement as stipulated under procedural law. The case of Rama Nand and Others v. Amrit Lala and Others was cited to support the contention that a change in legal counsel at a belated stage does not justify an amendment to the written statement.

Court’s Judgement:

The Allahabad High Court meticulously reviewed the facts and legal precedents. The Court acknowledged that the dates of filing the suit, the written statement, and the amendment application were undisputed. However, the core issue was whether a typographical error or a change in counsel could justify the withdrawal of an admission made in the written statement.

Referencing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Life Insurance Corporation and Ram Niranjan Kajaria, the Court held that admissions made in pleadings are sacrosanct and cannot be withdrawn by way of an amendment application. Justice Tiwari emphasized that typographical errors do not constitute sufficient grounds for such a withdrawal.

Furthermore, the Court cited various precedents, including Nagindas Ramdas and Gautam Sarup, to reinforce the principle that categorical admissions in pleadings are inviolable. The Court also examined the impact of a change in counsel on the application for amendment. It referenced decisions in Hari Shankar and Others v. Bhawati Prasad Mishra, Shri Firoz Uddin and Others v. Shri Anwar Uddin, and Rama Nand and Others v. Amrit Lala and Others. These cases collectively established that a change of counsel does not satisfy the due diligence requirement necessary for amending pleadings.

The Court concluded that the revisionists failed to demonstrate any substantial reason, apart from the engagement of new counsel, to justify their amendment application. As the application did not fulfill the due diligence condition, it was deemed impermissible under the law.