Whether defendants can be permitted to withdraw admissions given in written statement on ground of misconduct of their Advocate?

The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed a written statement in civil suit No. 140/1992 on 08.01.1993. The amendment application was filed by them on 07.03.2006 i.e. more than 13 years after the written statement was filed. The delay is inordinate. But the delay in all cases, cannot be fatal because that party may be pleading new events or the new events may prompt the party to mould the defence. But the fact here is that, the application for amendment, is filed 13 years after the original written statement is filed. Now, the contents of the amendment application seeking amendment to the written statement, become very material. They show that the defendant No. 1 is the real brother of the defendant No. 3 and it is alleged that because of that, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had trust in defendant No. 1. It is specifically alleged that the defendant No. 1 approached the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and told them that he would engage a Lawyer for them and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 would have to sign the papers prepared by the Advocate. It is further alleged that they signed the blank Vakalatnama. Further, they contend that they were asked by the defendant No. 1 to come to the Court and sign the written statement before the Court Superintendent and accordingly, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 went to the Court and signed the written statement, but they were not supplied the copies of the written statement and contents of the written statement, were not explained to them. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 contend that they came to know of the contents of this written statement in civil suit No. 140/1992 and the wrong statements made therein only when they received a copy of the plaint in civil suit No. 112/2005. They contend that they, therefore, issued a notice to their Advocate Shri Joshi withdrawing the Vakalatnama. It is in this background that the amendment of the written statement was sought by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent, made much ado about the conduct of the Lawyer appearing for the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and he submits that the conduct of the said Lawyer, was unbecoming and he had drafted the written statement without letting the defendants know the contents. The conduct of the Lawyer here, in fact becomes immaterial. I would only say that prima facie, there is no substance in the contention about the conduct of the Advocate. Prima facie, it appears that both the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are educated persons. They have signed in English. They had gone with their brother to the Court and had signed the written statement in presence of the Superintendent of the Court. Further, the contents of the amendment application, do not make any kind of allegations against the Lawyer, but all the allegations are made against the defendant No. 1, who is the brother of the defendant No. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent, should not have, therefore, made an ado about the conduct of Shri Joshi Advocate. It is difficult to assume at this stage that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 did not know the contents of the written statement for all these 13 years. I may mention further that last para of the old written statement,i.e. para 31 and the contents of that para, are very material. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have signed the written statement, which is below that last para. It is difficult to accept that without reading that last para, they had signed the written statement. I may observe here that the learned Judge of the Trial Court while deciding the suit, should not get influenced by these observations because these observations are prima facie observations. Be that as it may, the fact is that the defendants now want to resile from what is stated in the original written statement. We have seen that there is an inordinate delay of 13 years in filing an amendment application. It is difficult to accept prima facie that the defendants were unaware of the contents of the written statement and they came to know of it only on service of plaint in second suit. There is no other explanation in the amendment application for such delay and I do not find the explanation for delay as stated, to be very convincing. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition Nos. 691 of 2008 and 8 of 2009

Decided On: 18.03.2009

 Shri Armando Pereira Vs. Shri Jude D'Souza S/o John D'Souza and Ors.


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C.L. Pangarkar, J.
Citation: 2009 AIR Bom 2748.
Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page