Jharkhand HC :Admissions Made In Pleadings Are Binding U/S 21 of Evidence Act and Cannot Be Retracted At Appellate Stage

11.2 So far as the second plea raised by the Appellant

assailing the impugned Award on the ground that the

claimant injured had sustained no injury by causing the

accident by the offending Truck. This plea of the fact has

been raised on behalf of the Appellant for the first time at

the stage of appeal; While before the learned Tribunal on

behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company in its written

statement has admitted that the claimant Ashim Parveen

@ Nagmi injured had sustained injury in the accident

caused by the contributory negligence of the driver of

Bolero as well as offending Truck. This admission made by

the Appellant-Insurance Company in the pleading of the

written statement is binding upon the Appellant Insurance

Company under Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act and cannot

deviate from the same at the stage of appeal for the first time.

11.7 The Hon’ble Apex Court held in RAMA KT BARMAN (DIED) THR. LRS VERSUS MD. MAHIM ALI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw SC 637 that it is well settled principle of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of parties and Appellate Court is supposed to decide the issue involved in the suit based on pleading of parties.Para 14 reads as under:

14. Apart from the fact that none of the said substantial

questions of law formulated by the High Court were either

raised before the trial court or the appellate court, none of

parties was given any opportunity of leading the evidence on

the said issues. It is well-settled principle of law that the Court

cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either

of the parties, and the appellate court is supposed to decide

the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the

parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M.A.No. 101 of 2021

National Insurance Company Limited Vs  Asmin Parveen @ Nagmi, 

CORAM :MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

Dated: 19.11.2024

Print Page

Whether plaintiff's case can be proved based on the admission of defendants in their pleadings, oral evidence or the documents produced by them?

After the parties lead evidence on the basis of the respective pleadings and tender oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the case of the plaintiff could be proved even on the basis of the admission by the defendants in their pleadings, oral evidence or by the documents produced by the defendants, which may in fact support the plaintiff.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

L.P.A. No. 5 of 1984

Decided On: 25.11.2005

Tulsabai and Ors. Vs.  Sakharam Bhanu Chavan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.P. Deshpande and Vasanti A. Naik, JJ.

Author: Vasanti A. Naik, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1270/2005,2006(2) MHLJ 219

Print Page

Whether admission in pleading can be accepted in part?

If an admission in pleading is made subject to a condition, it must either be accepted subject to the condition or not accepted at all.

It is permissible for a tribunal to accept part and reject the rest of any witness testimony. But an admission in pleading cannot be so dissected, and if it is made subject to a condition it must either be accepted subject to the condition or not accepted at all. 

BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Decided On: 25.02.1915

 Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy Vs. Mulji Haridas

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dunedin, Louis Addin Kershaw, George Farwell, John Edge and Ameer Ali, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1915 PC 2

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to prove fact which is admitted by other party?

The High Court proceeded on the premise   that
no   document   has   been   filed   for   purpose   of
establishing   that   Survey   No.   188/2   stands   in   the
name   of   Janaki   Ammal   and   further,   the   High   Court
proceeded   that   First   Defendant   being   not   absolute
owner of the old Survey No. 188 except 5 acres and
10 cents, the plaintiff is the owner of the rest of
the property.
28. Thus   virtually,   the   suit   has   been   decreed   by
the   High   Court   for   Survey   No.   188/2,   whereas,
Survey   No.   188/2   was   admittedly   recorded   in   the
name of Janaki Ammal, who was not impleaded in the
suit nor any relief was claimed against the Janaki
Ammal or for Survey No.188/2. In this context, it
is   useful   to   refer   to   the   evidence   of   Plaintiff
himself i.e. PW 1. PW 1, in his deposition before
the   court,   has   admitted   the   fact   that   Survey   No.
188/2 is in the name of Janaki Ammal and he has not
initiated   any   action   against   her   nor   she   was
impleaded in the suit. Following statement was made
by the PW 1 in his statement:
"It   is   correct   to   say   that   S.No.
188/2 stands in the name of Janaki
Ammal.   Now   the   said   Janaki   Ammal
sold   that   property   to   third
person.   I   have   not   initiated   any
action to include Janaki Ammal as
a party to this suit.”
29. In   view   of   the   statement   of   the   plaintiff
himself   that   Survey   No.   188/2   is   in   the   name   of
Janaki   Ammal,   the   observations   of   the   High   Court
that   no   documentary   evidence   was   filed   for   the
purpose   of   establishing   that   Survey   No.   188/2
stands   in   the   name   of   Janaki   Ammal   are   erroneous
and   mis­placed.   When   Plaintiff   himself   admitted
that   Survey   No.   188/2   is   recorded   in   the   name   of
Janaki Ammal, there was no basis for the High Court
to   come   to   conclusion   that   plaintiff   is   entitled
for the area apart from 5 acres and 10 cents, which
belonged to the Temple.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2342 OF 2017

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU       
CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST 
VIRUDHUNAGAR    
   V
CHANDRAN & ORS  

Print Page

What is distinction between admission in pleading and evidentiary admission?

On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:

(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;

(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” In the case before us, we are afraid, many of the factors referred to above, have not been satisfied. It is significant to note that Defendant Nos. 5 and 12, after moving an application for amendment withdrawing the admissions made in the written statement, have filed a substantive suit attacking the alleged relinquishment of their claim in the family property and we are informed that the trial is in progress. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to deal with the matter any further lest it should affect the outcome of the suit filed by Defendant Nos. 5 and 12 since the declaration sought in the suit filed in 2005 is to take away the basis of the said relinquishment of the claim in the suit property. However, as far as amendment is concerned, the attempt to wholly resile from the admission made after twenty five years, we are afraid, cannot be permitted.

Delay in itself may not be crucial on an application for amendment in a written statement, be it for introduction of a new fact or for explanation or clarification of an admission or for taking an alternate position. It is seen that the issues have been framed in the case before us, only in 2009. The nature and character of the amendment and the other circumstances as in the instant case which we have referred to above, are relevant while considering the delay and its consequence on the application for amendment. But a party cannot be permitted to wholly withdraw the admission in the pleadings, as held by this Court in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharamalias Brijram and others[6]. To quote Paragraph-27:

“27. From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar, the principle that emerges is, that if at the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the Court, on the basis of which, the Court could be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for eviction though apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape either of evidence recorded or produced in the case, or, it may partly or wholly be in the shape of an express or implied admission made in the compromise agreement, itself. Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.” (Emphasis supplied) We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas (supra) and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup (supra) that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. To that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava (supra), does not reflect the correct legal position and it is overruled.

However, the admission can be clarified or explained by way of amendment and the basis of admission can be attacked in a substantive proceedings. In this context, we are also mindful of the averment in the application for amendment that:

Supreme Court of India

Ram Niranjan Kajaria vs Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Ors on 18 September, 2015

Bench: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, Amitava Roy

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.   7213 OF 2015
(Arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 31423-31424 /2010)

Citation;2016(3) MHLJ172

Print Page

Whether admission in pleading can be withdrawn?

 What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive of each other.” 

Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.” (Emphasis supplied) We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas (supra) and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup (supra) that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. To that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava (supra), does not reflect the correct legal position and it is overruled.

However, the admission can be clarified or explained by way of amendment and the basis of admission can be attacked in a substantive proceedings. 

Supreme Court of India

Ram Niranjan Kajaria vs Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Ors on 18 September, 2015

Bench: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, Amitava Roy

Citation;(2015) 10 SCC203

Print Page

When court should not pass decree on the basis of admission given by other side in pleading?

The SC further said: “In the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord, appellant-tenant has admitted the relationship of tenancy and the period of lease agreement; but resisted respondent-plaintiff’s claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs.82.50 lakhs, which of course is stoutly denied by the respondent-landlord. The appellant-defendant also filed the Suit for Specific Performance, which of course is contested by the respondent-landlord. When such issues arising between the parties ought to be decided, mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6106-6108 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4987-4989 of 2015)
S.M. ASIF V VIRENDER KUMAR BAJAJ 
 Dated;August 12, 2015
 R. BANUMATHI, J.

Print Page

When court should not give decree for divorce on admission of other spouse?

 The question that arises for consideration, therefore, is
whether in the facts of the case, the afore-stated admissions of the
respondent, warrant a decree on admission. At the outset, it may be noted
that the proceedings are matrimonial proceedings, wherein the petitioner
has sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The said
petition is contested by the respondent by filing his written statement.
According to the respondent, he is ready and willing to give divorce to the
petitioner, as per the customs prevailing in their community. The said
acceptance of the respondent of divorce cannot be said to be an admission
under Order 12 Rule 6. The grounds on which divorce is sought by the
petitioner i.e. cruelty and desertion are not accepted by the respondent and
are infact contested by him.
 Thus, there can be no application of Order 12 Rule 6, in the
facts of the present case, as all the allegations will have to be gone into by
the Trial Court, before granting the decree of divorce. What is important
are the grounds on which divorce is sought and not merely the prayer for
divorce. Merely, because the respondent is willing to give divorce as per
the customs prevailing in the community, does not mean that the grounds
on which the divorce is sought, are accepted by him. The learned Judge has
rightly rejected the application, preferred by the petitioner.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6474 OF 2013
Karishma Qureshi,V Faisal Qureshi,

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 30, 2014
Citation; AIR 2015 Bombay 46

Print Page

Whether non framing of issues is fatal?

It is indeed a matter of common knowledge that whenever any party asserts its right, and pursuant thereto claims any enforcement of reliefs which is seriously disputed by the other side, then, obviously the burden to establish the same by leading the evidence is on the party asserting such rights. The Civil Procedure Code and the law of evidence are clear enough on the point to tell us that when facts are in dispute, the trial Court in the first instance is bound to frame the issues of facts and/or of law (as the case may be) as warranted under Order XIV. Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Such framing of issues in the first instance would facilitate the applicant to lead necessary evidence in support of the claim and the reliefs prayed pursuant thereto. In the second instance, it will avail the opponent an opportunity to confront and contradict the particular witness and thereafter to lead the evidence (if he so desires) to bring home the defence pleaded and in the third instance, enlighten the trial Court to test and appreciate the same in proper perspective to enable it to reach just decision.It is hardly required to be told that issues are back-bone of a suit. They are also the lamppost which enlightens the parti es to the proceedings, the trial Court and even the appellate Court - as to what is the controversy, what is evidence and where lies the way to truth and justice. Further framing of issues is absolutely essential to a right decision of the case and therefore this bounden duty of framing of issues primarily rests on the trial Court. Thus, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, it is very clear that the opponent has not led any evidence in support of the claim and contentions. Under such circumstances, the question that arises for the consideration is two fold--firstly, whether such factually contradicted and contested point can ever be decided on the basis of bare assertions on the one hand and denial on the other hand? And secondly, whether the Court in its turn also without any evidence before it to enlighten its way to reach a just decision can arbitrarily decide the same? The obvious answer to this question is 'no'. This quick way of doing justice is nothing but quickening justice! Such arbitrary and haphazard summary procedure unnecessarily protracts the proceedings before the Court, because the aggrieved party is bound to challenge the same before the higher forums which in turn is bound to allow such patently illegal order and remand the same, resulting into multiplicity of the proceedings, physical and financial hardships, besides other inconvenience to the parties concerned, burdening the workload of the Courts at all stages costing precious public time and money, etc. etc. At the cost of repetition, it may once again be stated that the Courts are bound to frame issues of facts and/or that of law, as the case may be, when parties cross their swords disputing each other's right and thereafter only, decide the controversy between them on the basis of the evidence led before it. The trial Court must have an opportunity to test, appreciate and judge for itself the evidence produced before it, before it takes a particular decision one way or the other. In such cases, if the party asserting right does not lead evidence in support of its claim, it has to go home and thank itself. The oral assertions and production of some documents by themselves, by no stretch of imagination can throw any light on the controversy so as to enable the Court to do the real and substantial justice between the parties concerned. What is permissible to the High Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is certainly not permissible to the subordinate Courts while deciding the applications of such a nature. In substance, what this Court emphasises is well propounded elementary principles of the Civil law which hardly requires to be further elucidated.

Equivalent Citation : 1994 GLH (2)403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Decided On: 20.12.1993

 State of Gujarat Vs. Jaipalsingh Jaswantsingh Engineers and Contractors

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.J. Vaidya, J.

Print Page

Whether suit can be dismissed on the ground that more particulars are not stated in pleading?

It was the case of the appellants that during the pendency of the suit first respondent and his sister (second respondent) were unlawfully, inducted into possession of the building. So appellants moved an application for amendment of the building. So appellants moved an application for amendment of the plaint and the same was granted by the trial court. In the plaint so amended paragraph 5-A was inserted, the material portion of which reads thus: "The Plaintiffs say that pending the suit the defendants have or any of them has inducted in the suit premises Defendant Nos. 4 & 5 unlawfully." Learned Single Judge treated the aforesaid pleading as insufficient to make out a case for subletting. This was not a point considered by or even raised before the two fact finding forums. Order 6 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (For short 'the Code') confers powers on the Court to order a party to make a further statement or even a better statement or further and better particulars of any matter already mentioned in the pleading. This is incorporated in the Code to indicate that no suit shall be dismissed merely on the ground that more particulars are not stated in the pleadings. If the contesting respondents, or any of them had raised objection that the pleading was scanty perhaps appellants would have further elaborated it as provided in Rule 5 above. At any rate this should not have been a premise on which interference by the High Court Should have been made in exercising a jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.

That apart, the averment extracted above cannot by any standard be dubbed as bereft of sufficiency in pleading. Under Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Code the requirement is the following:

"Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

The object of the Rule is two-fold. First is to afford the other said intimation regarding the particular facts of hiscase so that they may be met by the other side. Second is to enable the court to determine what is really the issue between the parties. The words in the sub-rule "a statement in a concise form" are definitely suggestive that brevity should be adhered to while drafting pleadings. Of course brevity should not be at the cost of setting out necessary facts, but it does not mean niggling in the pleadings. If care is taken in the syntactic process, pleadings can be saved from tautology. Elaboration of facts in pleadings is not the ideal measure and that is why the sub-rule embodied the words "and contain only" just before the succeeding words "a statement in a concise form of the material facts".

This Court has indicated the position in Manphul Singh vs. Surinder Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2158). On a subsequent occasion this court has again reiterated the principle in M/s. Genesh tradingCo. vs Moji Ram (AIR 1978 SC 484). Following observations made in the said decision are useful in this context:

"Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take." sufficient notice to the other side that he was putting forth a case that first respondent was inducted into the premises by the tenant and such induction is unlawful. Appellant could not made a further elaboration as to who is the legal heir of the original tenant and Nance appellant adopted the cautious approach without committing themselves as to who, among the rival claimants to the legal heir-ship of Ms. Shanta Sabnis is responsible for such unlawful act. We are, therefore, of the clear view that learned single judge ought not have disturbed the concurrent findings on such an erroneous consideration.
SUPREME COURT

VIRENDRA KASHINATH RAVANT AND ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VINAYAK N.JOSHI AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/11/1998
BENCH:
S.Saghir Ahmad, K.T.Thomas

Print Page

Supreme Court: Distinction between admission in pleading and evidentiary admissions

In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam this Court held:

Admissions if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.

Supreme Court of India

Gautam Sarup vs Leela Jetly And Ors. on 7 March, 2008

Equivalent citations: (2008) 4 MLJ 468 SC, 2008 (4) SCALE 459

Bench: S Sinha, V Sirpurkar

Print Page