Admissions In Written Statement Cannot Be Withdrawn On Grounds Of Typographical Error; Change Of Counsel Cannot Be Ground For Amendment: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High has observed that any admission given in a written statement cannot be withdrawn on the grounds of typographical error and that the change of counsel cannot be a ground to seek amendment.
The Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari observed, “From the perusal of same, it is clear that any admission given in written statement cannot be withdrawn on the ground of typographical error…In the light of law laid down by the Courts, change of counsel cannot be a ground to file amendment application bypassing the rigorous conditions of due diligence. In fact, to meet out any mistake, no advantage can be given to litigant due to change of counsel…In present case, facts are undisputed that due to typographical error as well as change of counsel, amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been filed to withdraw the admission earlier made in written submissions, which cannot be permitted in the light of law laid down by the Courts from time to time, therefore, I found no illegal or infirmity in the impugned order.”
Advocate Ashwini Kumar appeared for the Revisionist whereas Advocate Santosh Kumar Kesarwani appeared for the Opposite Party.
A revision petition was filed seeking a stay on the further proceedings pending before the District Judge. It was the case of the Revisionist that he had filed a written statement admitting tenancy, in which the document so annexed containing one licence deed was mentioned as ‘tenant’ instead of ‘licensee’ due to a typographical error. This was pointed out by the new counsel. Amendment Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was moved for substitution of the words which was rejected.
The issue before the Court was whether admission made in written submissions may be withdrawn due to typographical error pointed out by new counsel.
The Court relied on Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Jyoti Sahay(1984 SC) and reiterated, “Therefore, in the light of facts of the case as well as law laid down by the Courts, this Court is also of the firm view that once an admission is made in pleadings, same cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment application.”
As regards the typographical errors the Court placed its reliance on Abdul Ahmad vs. Haq Nawaz Ahmad(2016 All HC).
Another issue which was dealt with by the Court was amendment after the change of counsel for which the Court placed its reliance on the landmark judgment in Hari Shanker and 5 others vs. Bhagwati Prasad Mishra (2014 SC) which held “The written statement was drafted by an advocate after reading the plaint. After legal advice, it cannot be said that in exercise of "due diligence" the fact sought to be brought in the pleading by way of amendment was not in the knowledge of the defendant. A distinction has to be drawn between 'due diligence' and 'negligence'. The case of the defendants falls in the category of 'negligence' and not 'due diligence'. Trial Court rightly rejected the amendment application, as Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., now castes a rider on the power of the Court in allowing amendment application.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition as being sans merits.
Cause Title: Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Rama Raman and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:95790)
Appearances:
Revisionist: Advocate Ashwini Kumar
Opposite Party: Advocates Santosh Kumar Kesarwani and Girish Kumar Gupta.