Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court: In a revision petition filed by petitioner seeking to amend written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) due to change of change of counsel and typographical errors, Neeraj Tiwari, J. held a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn due to typographical errors or change of counsel, by way of an amendment, in absence of rigorous due diligence.


The respondent herein had filed a case against the petitioner. In response, the petitioner filed a written statement, wherein he had admitted tenancy. However, upon changing his counsel, the petitioner discovered that the document annexed with the written statement referred to a ‘license deed’ rather than a ‘tenant.’ Claiming a typographical error, the petitioner filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking to replace the word ‘tenant’ with ‘licensee.’

Decision and Analysis

The Court took note of the petitioner’s reliance on the LIC of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 722, particularly the portions of the judgment highlighting that admissions favourable to the plaintiff should not be withdrawn. The Court observed that this precedent did not support the petitioner’s claim, as it explicitly stated that clear admissions in pleadings should not be subject to withdrawal.

The Court also considered the respondents’ reliance on the judgment in Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria, (2015) 10 SCC 203, which firmly established that categorical admissions in pleadings cannot be withdrawn through amendments.

The Court further referring to Abdul Ahmad v. Haq Nawaz Ahmad, 2016 SCC OnLine All 2910 and reiterated that even that admissions due to typographical errors cannot be withdrawn once admitted.

The Court noted that “there is a clear admission of the petitioner with regard to the landlord-tenant relationship between him and the plaintiff… though the admission in paragraph no.9 of the written statement has not been withdrawn as the petitioner did not seek any such prayer in the amendment application.”

Additionally, the Court further noted that the admission made in the written statement by petitioner could not be withdrawn on the grounds of a typographical error or change of counsel.

The Court further emphasized that such admissions are binding and cannot be retracted merely due to a change in legal representation and observed that the conditions of due diligence were not met, and allowing such amendments would undermine the judicial process by permitting litigants to escape the consequences of their initial admissions

Therefore, the Court dismissed the revision petition, whilst concluding that the principles of law and precedents unequivocally prohibit the withdrawal of admissions through amendments, particularly when such amendments are sought on flimsy grounds like typographical errors or changes in counsel.

[Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Rama Raman, 2024 SCC OnLine All 2510, Order dated 27-05-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Advocate for the Petitioner: Ashwini Kumar, Advocate

Advocate for the Respondent: Girish Kumar Gupta, Advocate

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

One comment

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.