Amendment of written statement may clarify an admission when it does not introduce a wholly new or unrelated case.

A party is not invariably confined to an earlier admission in a written statement, and a suitable amendment may be permitted to explain or even depart from that admission where the proposed pleading does not set up a wholly new and unrelated case. The amendment here was treated as clarifying the character of the agreement and the surrounding pleadings rather than withdrawing the admission altogether. No material irregularity was found in the revisional exercise that allowed the amendment, and the challenge to that order was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant could be permitted to amend the written statement so as to explain and modify an earlier admission, and whether such amendment was barred because it would amount to withdrawing the admission.

Analysis: A party is not rigidly bound to a single pleading version in all circumstances, and an admission in the written statement does not forever preclude an explanation or even an inconsistent plea in proper cases. The proposed amendment did not introduce a wholly new and unrelated case, but sought to clarify the character of the agreement and the pleadings concerning it. No material irregularity was shown in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in allowing the amendment.

Conclusion: The amendment of the written statement was rightly allowed, and the challenge to the High Court's order failed.

---