Withdrawal of a judicial admission through amendment of written statement is not permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The petitioner (Hawaldar Dubey) is the defendant in a partition suit (Title Suit No. 74 of 2021) filed by his sister, Hridaya Devi, regarding the estate of their late father, Mansha Dubey

Harendra Pandey (Respondent No. 2) filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC to be impleaded as a party, claiming to be the son of Kalawati Devi (the alleged sister of Mansha Dubey) and thus a co-sharer

the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend his written statement to delete previous admissions regarding the genealogy that included Kalawati Devi

On 29.07.2022, the Sub Judge-II, Dumraon, allowed the impleadment of the intervenor and rejected the petitioner’s amendment application

1. Whether the trial court erred in impleading the intervenor (Harendra Pandey) as a party to the partition suit under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC.

2. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to amend his written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to withdraw an admission regarding genealogy.

The court applied Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the impleadment of "necessary" or "proper" parties to ensure all questions involved in the suit are effectively adjudicated

It also applied Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC regarding the amendment of pleadings, governed by the established legal principle that a party cannot be permitted to withdraw a categorical admission through an amendment, as such an act causes irreparable prejudice to the other side

Regarding impleadment, the court observed that the intervenor claimed a share as the grandson of Bikau Dubey through his daughter Kalawati Devi

The petitioner himself had previously admitted this genealogy in documents filed before the D.C.L.R. in a mutation appeal (Annexure-2). Since the intervenor’s status as a descendant was supported by the petitioner’s own prior filings, he was a proper party for the final adjudication of the partition

Regarding the amendment, the court found that the petitioner sought to delete averments that recognized the intervenor's branch of the family. The court reasoned that since these averments constituted an admission of the genealogy, allowing their deletion would amount to the withdrawal of an admission, which is legally impermissible under the discretionary powers of Order VI Rule 17

the court clarified that the final determination of facts and shares would be decided based on evidence adduced during the trial