IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 218 CR-3139-2022 Date of Decision:10.09.2025 Jaswant Singh and Another …..Pe..oners Vs. Iqbal Kaur and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for the peoners. Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoners herein are the plainffs before learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali in civil suit bearing No.CS-312-2019 tled as “Jaswant Singh etc. vs. Iqbal Kaur etc.”. They are aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by the trial Court, whereby applicaon of the defendants to withdraw from the admission and to file altogether fresh wri9en statement, has been allowed. Learned counsel for the peoners contends that suit was filed by the plainffs seeking declaraon that they are in culvang possession of the suit land and that entries to the contrary showing the defendants to be in their possession were wrong and illegal. The defendants NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3139-2022 -2- i.e. respondents herein filed wri9en statement (copy Annexure P-2) admi;ng the claim of the plainffs. They also appeared before the Court and made statement (Annexure P-3), admi;ng the claim of the plainffs. However later on, the defendants moved an applicaon seeking withdrawal of the wri9en statement and seeking permission to file fresh wri9en statement. The trial Court by way of the impugned order has allowed that applicaon. Assailing the order, learned counsel contends that no proper procedure was followed, inasmuch as no applicaon under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was moved so as to withdraw or explain the admission made by the defendants. Learned counsel has drawn a9enon towards “Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly” 2008(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 487 wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that categorical admission cannot be resiled but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that no applicaon under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was moved. Even the trial Court in the impugned order has noced that though there is no provision in CPC for giving permission to file altogether different wri9en statement but considering the peculiar facts of the case, permission was granted under Secon 151 CPC. The impugned order as passed by the trial Court cannot be NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3139-2022 -3- sustained as it is contrary to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The impugned order is hereby set aside. However respondents-defendants will be at liberty to move appropriate applicaon in case they want to seek amendment in the wri9en statement. In case, any such applicaon is moved by the respondents- defendants, the same shall be considered by the trial Court strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observaon made by this Court in this order. Disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE September 10, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document