Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 756 (PNJ)

Sukhpal Singh v. Sukhjeet Kaur

2009-04-21

RAJESH BINDAL

body2009
Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The plaintiffs are before this Court challenging the order dated 22.8.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 for withdrawing the admissions made by them in the written statement filed has been allowed and they have been permitted to file fresh written statement. The challenge is made qua the withdrawal of admissions made by respondent No. 1 only in the present petition. 2. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that after the death of husband of respondent No. 1, namely, Kulwant Singh, who was father of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 agreed to sell the land belonging to her and respondent No. 2, her minor daughter, to the petitioners-plaintiffs. The agreement to sell was executed on 31.5.2000. It was mentioned therein that as part of the land was owned by a minor, respondent No. 1 will get permission of the competent court for the purpose. In a petition filed before District Judge, Sirsa, the permission was granted on 5.1.2001, as has been noticed in the impugned order. As the land was to be transferred in the names of the petitioners, suit was filed on 24.5.2002 seeking declaration to the effect that the petitioners- plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land in question on the basis of a family settlement in which respondents No. 1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement on 1.8.2002 admitting the claim of the petitioners-plaintiffs. CR No. 5370 of 2008 [2] Even the statement of respondent No. 1 was also recorded in Court on 2.8.2002 where she reiterated what was stated in the written statement. 3. On 31.8.2002, respondent No. 2, minor daughter of respondent No. 1, filed application through her maternal uncle seeking withdrawal of the admissions made on her behalf. During the pendency thereof, she became major and herself filed the application on 1.10.2007 for withdrawal of the admissions made on her behalf. During the pendency of the application for withdrawal of the admissions made on behalf of respondent No. 2, even respondent No. 1 also filed application on 18.8.2004 for withdrawal of the admissions made by her, i.e., more than 2 years after she had filed the written statement and got her statement recorded before the Court. It is both these applications, which have been allowed by the learned court below vide impugned order. 4. It is both these applications, which have been allowed by the learned court below vide impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is only aggrieved against the order pertaining to the application filed by respondent No. 1 which is impugned in the present petition. 5. Referring to the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case where with open eyes, respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the land in question with the petitioners. Not only this, she filed written statement admitting the claim of the petitioners- plaintiffs, where she was represented by a counsel. She even appeared before the court and reiterated the stand taken by her in the written statement. Thereafter, nothing lie in the mouth of respondent No. 1 to claim more than two years thereafter that the written statement, which was filed by her admitting the claim of the petitioners-plaintiffs, was in fact a result of fraud as her signatures were obtained on blank papers under the garb that certain land, mortgaged by her husband, was to be redeemed.The claim that the earlier written statement filed was as a result of fraud is totally misconceived. In fact, the filing of application after such a huge delay was nothing, but an after thought and the object was to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioners. Reliance was placed upon Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, AIR 1998 SC 618,. Vinod Kumar v. M/s Baldev Krishan Rakesh Kumar Commission Agents, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 420 and Sarwan Kumar v. Balbir Singh and others, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 545. 6. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 submitted that once a fraud is played on a person and a written statement is got filed from him/her without him/her having knowledge of the facts stated therein, he/she was entitled to withdraw the admissions so made as the fraud vitiates everything. It was submitted that the petitioners had fiduciary relationship with respondent No. 1 and taking benefit thereof, projected that certain land mortgaged by her late husband had to be redeemed and some blank papers were got signed which were used for filing written statement admitting the claim made by the petitioners in a suit filed by them, which cannot bind respondent No. 1, as she was entitled to contest the suit filed against her. 7. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 8. From the facts, as have been noticed in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that respondent No. 1 not only had filed the written statement in the Court admitting the claim of the petitioners-plaintiffs in the suit filed by them, but had also appeared in the Court on 2.8.2002 to get her statement recorded, wherein she categorically stated that the suit filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs was correct and the claim made therein is admitted and the suit be decreed. All what is sought to be explained by respondent No. 1 in the application filed, to come out of the admissions already made is the filing of written statement, that the same was typed on a blank paper got signed from her. She has no explanation whatsoever for her appearance in Court on 2.8.2002 and getting her statement recorded which, in any manner, cannot said to be as a result of fraud as the fact that she had appeared in the court to get her statement recorded is not disputed. 9. Not only this, another fact which is quite evident on record is that though the written statement was filed by respondent No. 1 and even her statement was recorded in court on 2.8.2002, but still in spite of the fact that she was in knowledge of the application having been filed by respondent No. 2 on 31.8.2002, her minor daughter, to withdraw the admissions made by respondent No. 1 on her behalf, the application for withdrawal of admissions by respondent No. 1 was filed two years thereafter, i.e., on 18.8.2004 which can simply be termed as an after-thought and an effort to wriggle out of the admissions already made which cannot be justified on any ground whatsoever. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.8.2008, passed by the learned court below, is set aside to the extent it accepted the application filed by respondent No. 1 for withdrawal of the admissions made in the written statement already filed and permitted her to file fresh written statement. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.