Defendants can not be allowed to resile from admission made in WS

S. Malla Reddy v. Future Builders Coop. Housing Society, (2013) 9 SCC 349 ;2014 (1) MHLJ 771 SC
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 6 Rr. 16 & 17, Or. 8 R. 9, Or. 12 R. 1 and S. 115 - Abuse of process of court - Approbate and reprobate - Attempt to
resile from admission made in original written statement (WS), deprecated - Attempts to substitute original WS with a
fresh WS, held, thus rightly thwarted by High Court - After dismissal of petitions under Or. 6 R. 16 and Or. 8 R. 9 for
substitution of original WS by fresh WS even by Supreme Court, filing of fresh petition after long lapse of time seeking
same relief labelling it under Or. 6 R. 17 when hearing of the suit had already commenced, held, amounted to abuse of
process of court
- Petitions (IAs) filed by defendant under Or. 6 R. 16 and Or. 8 R. 9 in the suit, seeking leave of court to
strike out pleadings in WS or expunge WS and to permit them to file detailed WS - WS originally filed contained an
admission in favour of plaintiff and that WS sought to be replaced by a fresh WS which contained an entirely new case
contrary to the admission - Trial court treating these petitions as in substance falling under Or. 6 R. 17, and rejected them
- In revision, High Court concluded that defendants could not be allowed to resile from admission made in WS and take
recourse to Or. 8 R. 9 or Or. 6 R. 16 by seeking to file fresh WS - Defendants' review petition before High Court and
appeals before Supreme Court dismissed - About 13 years after trial court's order defendants filed fresh petition under
Or. 6 R. 17 seeking leave of court to amend WS when hearing of suit had already commenced and some witnesses
examined - Trial court dismissed petition by a non-speaking order but pursuant to High Court's direction to dispose it by
speaking order, trial court after hearing allowed amendment petition - In revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution High
Court set aside trial court's order - Held, High Court rightly took view that filing of subsequent petition for same relief after
13 years when hearing of suit had already commenced amounted to abuse of process of court - Relief sought for in
subsequent petition under Or. 6 R. 17 was elaborately dealt with in two earlier petitions under Or. 6 R. 16 and Or. 8 R. 9
and therefore, subsequent petition labelling it under Or. 6 R. 17 wholly misconceived and unsustainable, 
Or. 6 Rr. 16 & 17 - Distinction between two Rules - While R. 16 deals with striking out opposite party's pleadings, R. 17
deals with amendment of own pleadings, 

Print Page