Withdrawal of admissions in pleadings was barred, but the amendment on separate property items was allowed.

A pleading amendment cannot be used to withdraw clear admissions and replace them with an inconsistent stand when the opposite party has already gained an accrued advantage and would suffer irretrievable prejudice. The Court held that the written statement could not be amended to retract admissions that certain Schedule-A items were joint family properties with the plaintiff entitled to a one-third share, so that part of the amendment was rightly rejected. However, the proposed amendment concerning Schedule-B properties was allowed because no admission had been made in the plaintiff's favour, no vested right was displaced, and the plea merely added a factual assertion on possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment of the written statement could be allowed to withdraw earlier admissions made in respect of five items of Schedule-A properties. (ii) Whether the amendment relating to Schedule-B properties could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment of the written statement could be allowed to withdraw earlier admissions made in respect of five items of Schedule-A properties.

Analysis: The written statement had clearly admitted that seven items in Schedule-A were joint family properties and that the plaintiff had a one-third share. On that basis, there was no real dispute as to those items and the plaintiff could have sought a preliminary decree. An amendment permitting withdrawal of such admissions at a late stage would have displaced the plaintiff's accrued advantage and caused irretrievable prejudice. The earlier admissions could not be recalled by taking a wholly inconsistent stand.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be allowed in so far as it sought to withdraw the admissions concerning five items of Schedule-A properties, and that part was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment relating to Schedule-B properties could be sustained.

Analysis: The defendants had not made any admission in favour of the plaintiff regarding Schedule-B properties. The proposed amendment concerning those properties did not displace any vested right of the plaintiff or undo any earlier admission. It merely introduced a further factual assertion relating to possession, which did not prejudice the plaintiff's case.

Conclusion: The amendment relating to Schedule-B properties was permissible and was not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent of the attempted withdrawal of admissions concerning Schedule-A properties, while the amendment allowed in relation to Schedule-B properties remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot be permitted to amend a pleading so as to withdraw clear admissions and substitute an inconsistent plea when doing so would displace the opposing party's case and cause irretrievable prejudice.

---