SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN versus MANOJ KUMAR & ANR.

SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN versus MANOJ KUMAR & ANR.

Admission made by a defendant in written statement can be explained or withdrawn through amendment, even by taking inconsistent pleas; the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not applicable where trial has not commenced, i.e., when issues have not been framed, documents not filed, and evidence not adduced.

Parties
Appellant: Sushil Kumar Jain; Respondents: Manoj Kumar & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Rejecting Amendment of Written Statement
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admission, Eviction Proceedings, East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act
Civil Procedure Rent Control and Eviction Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admission Eviction Proceedings East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sushil Kumar Jain

Appellant

Manoj Kumar & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Rejecting Amendment of Written Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admission made by defendant in written statement can be explained or withdrawn through amendment
  2. 2 Whether proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is applicable when trial has not commenced

Ratio Decidendi

Admission made by a defendant in written statement can be explained or withdrawn through amendment, even by taking inconsistent pleas; the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not applicable where trial has not commenced, i.e., when issues have not been framed, documents not filed, and evidence not adduced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned orders of High Court and Rent Controller set aside
  • Application for amendment of written statement allowed