Court rules on admission withdrawals after long period, allows clarification. Amendment rejected, defendants given time to clarify.

The Supreme Court held that Defendant Nos. 5 and 12 cannot withdraw their admissions made in the written statement after a long period but allowed them to explain or clarify those admissions. The application for amendment withdrawing the admissions was rejected, and the Defendants were given a month to file an application to clarify the admissions. The appeals were partly allowed, and the impugned judgment was modified accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Defendant in a suit for partition can be permitted to withdraw an admission made in the written statement after a long period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of Admission in Written Statement:
The primary issue in this case is whether Defendant Nos. 5 and 12 can withdraw an admission made in their written statement after a significant time lapse. The suit for partition pertains to the property originally belonging to Motilal Kajaria. Defendant Nos. 5 and 12, the son and widow of the predeceased son Mahabir Prasad Kajaria, filed a joint written statement in 1979, asserting that Mahabir Prasad had separated from his father and brothers in 1942 and renounced all his rights in the family property. They reiterated this position in an affidavit and subsequent court findings supported this claim.

2. Application for Amendment:
In 2004, Defendant Nos. 5 and 12 sought to amend their written statement to retract their previous admissions. The Single Judge dismissed this application, but the Division Bench allowed it, reasoning that denying the amendment would result in a failure of justice and irreparable injury to the Defendants. The Division Bench believed that the rejection was unjustified and that the amendment should be permitted to avoid the opposing Defendants benefiting from an apparent admission.

3. Supreme Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Division Bench, emphasizing the significance of the original admissions made by Defendant Nos. 5 and 12. The Court noted that the Defendants had consistently maintained that Mahabir Prasad had separated from the family and renounced his rights in the property. The Court cited several precedents, including *Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay* and *Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar*, which allowed amendments to clarify or explain admissions but not to withdraw them entirely.

4. Precedents on Admissions and Amendments:
The Court referred to *Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co.*, which held that amendments should not displace the Plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the Defendants. In *Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly*, it was established that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but may be explained or clarified. The principles on amendments were summarized in *Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons*, emphasizing that amendments should not cause prejudice to the other side and should be imperative for proper adjudication.

5. Conclusion and Directions:
The Supreme Court concluded that the attempt to wholly resile from the admission made after twenty-five years cannot be permitted. However, the Defendants are allowed to explain or clarify the admissions made in the written statement. The application for amendment withdrawing the admissions is rejected, but the Defendants are permitted to file an application within one month to explain/clarify the disputed admissions, which will be considered on its merits.

6. Costs and Final Orders:
The appeals are partly allowed, and the impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated. No order as to costs is made, considering the nature of the suit for partition of family property, with a hope for an amicable settlement.

Summary:
The Supreme Court held that Defendant Nos. 5 and 12 cannot withdraw their admissions made in the written statement after a long period but allowed them to explain or clarify those admissions. The application for amendment withdrawing the admissions was rejected, and the Defendants were given a month to file an application to clarify the admissions. The appeals were partly allowed, and the impugned judgment was modified accordingly.

---