https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176054 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. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:06:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176054 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176054