MP HC2026:MPHC-JBP:18779
SMT. KANUBHAI URF GANGABAI AND OTHERSv.SMT. VIDHYABAI AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH·9 Mar 2026·HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
Case No.
Decided On
Judges
Bench
Advocates
Citation
Statutes
Result
amendment of plaintpre-trial amendmentwithdrawal of admissionsnature of suitliberal construction
The petition challenges the trial court's order rejecting an application to amend the plaint. The petitioner argued the rejection was erroneous as it was a pre-trial amendment and should have been liberally construed. The respondent argued that only amendments amounting to withdrawal of admissions were disallowed. The High Court found the trial court's order lacked specificity regarding which admissions were being withdrawn and directed a fresh consideration of the amendment application, focusing on whether the disallowed amendments constitute a withdrawal of admissions.
While amendments to pleadings are generally allowed liberally, amendments that effectively withdraw previously made admissions are not permissible. A trial court's order disallowing amendments must clearly identify the admissions that would be withdrawn by the proposed changes.
1.ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated
07.02.2025 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has rejected
application for amendment in the plaint.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that the
application for amendment in the plaint has been erroneously rejected
because it was a pre-trial amendment and ought to have been construed
liberally. However, the trial Court has erred in not constructing the pre-trial
amendment liberally and has erroneously rejected the application for
amendment in the plaint.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that
several amendments were proposed and some of the proposed amendments
have been allowed by the trial Court and only those amendments have been
disallowed which amounted to withdrawal of certain admissions and the trial
Court has not erred in passing the impugned order.
4. Upon considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record as well as on perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the trial
Court by the said impugned order dated 07.02.2025 has partly allowed the
application for amendment by allowing certain proposed amendments while
disallowing several other proposed amendments. The trial Court has held that
several amendments which are being disallowed change the nature of the
suit. When this Court confronted learned counsel for the respondent-
defendant that how the nature of the suit is being changed, he clearly
admitted that the nature of the suit will not be changed but it will amount to
withdrawal of admissions that cannot be permitted in view of judgement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, (1998) 1 SCC 278 as
well as LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1 .
5. However, the trial Court has not held that which of the admissions
are going to be withdrawn but has simply recorded that some of the
amendments change the nature of the suit. It is settled in law that though
amendments can be liberally construed but admissions once made cannot be
allowed to be withdrawn or retracted by way of amendment. However, the
impugned order does not speak about any admission to be retracted by the
amendments which have been disallowed.
6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order
and to direct the trial Court to decide the application for amendment afresh.
The trial Court shall consider that whether the amendments in question
which have been proposed and disallowed, amount to withdrawal of any
admission. If the said amendments are found to amount to withdrawal of any
admission then the trial court shall be at liberty to disallow such amendments
which amount to withdrawal of any admission.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks