JUDGMENT
R.C. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition is directed
against an order of the learned Additional District
Judge, Delhi dated 26-07-2001 by which the prayer of
the petitioner-defendant to amend its written
statement has been partly declined.
2. The petitioner is facing a suit for
recovery or Rs. 4,99,000/- filed by the
respondent-plaintiff and filed its written statement.
Thereafter the respondent has filed its replication.
The petitioner made an application praying for
amendment of the written statement and wanted to
raise preliminary objection with regard to the
territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi to
entertain and try the suit in question besides
seeking other amendments. Vide the impugned order
the learned trial court has partly allowed the
application of the petitioner and permitted him to
amend the written statement so as to incorporation
preliminary objections 1 and 3 in regard to the suit
having not been filed by a duly authorised person and
the plaintiff having no right to claim interest from
the defendant. Trial Court has also allowed the
petitioner to incorporate para 5(a) as a further plea
in the written statement. The trial court,
however, declined to allow the petitioner to raise
preliminary objection with regard to the territorial
jurisdiction mainly on the premise that such an
objection was not raised by the petitioner at the
earliest stage or in the written statement and
thereby it has acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the
Court and could not be permitted to turn around and
take an inconsistent plea. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner has come up in this revision
petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for
the parties and the matter is being finally disposed
of at the admission stage itself. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has emphatically urged that the
trial court was not justified in declining the
permission to raise the objection with regard to
jurisdiction because such a plea is basically a legal
plea and the suit is still at its preliminary
stage i.e. issue have yet to be framed. He
emphasized that the approach of the Court has to be
liberal while considering an application for
amendment of pleadings as has been held in various
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High
Courts. As against this the contention of the
learned counsel for the respondent is that the
petitioner being in know of the entire facts has not
made a whisper about the lack of jurisdiction of the
trial court in its written statement and has quitely
submitted to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court
though contesting the suit on various grounds, cannot
be allowed to raise any objection about the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
4. I have given my thoughtful
consideration to the submissions put forward on
behalf of the parties. There is no denial of the
legal position that the power to allow amendment is
wide and can be exercised at any stage of the
proceedings in the interest of justice based on the
guide-lines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and various High Courts and that the Court has to
adopt a liberal approach while dealing with such
applications but at the same time it is also well
settled that a party cannot be allowed to withdraw
the admissions of facts made by it in its pleadings
by making amendment to the pleadings. In the case in
hand it would be noticed the plaintiff in para 10 of
the plaint had categorically averred as under:-
“10. That this Hon’ble Court has
jurisdiction to try the present
suit as the cause of action
arose at Delhi, the defendant
No. 1 was appointed as a dealer
in Delhi, material was supplied
at ex Delhi prices, the part
payments had been made by the
Defendants to the Plaintiffs at
Delhi. As such this Hon’ble
Court has jurisdiction to try
the suit.”
5. The petitioner-defendant in its written
statement has not even vaguely denied the contents of
the said paragraph of the plaint. The written
statement deals paragraphs up to serial No. 7 of the
plaint and does not deal with any further paragraphs.
This would clearly show that the petitioner-defendant
had in unequivocal terms admitted the facts averred
in paragraph 10 of the plaint which categorically
state that the cause of action for the suit has
arisen at Delhi and the Delhi Courts have
jurisdiction to try this suit. On the face of this
position permitting the petitioner to raise an
objection about the territorial jurisdiction would
clearly amount to withdrawal of admission of facts
made by the petitioner-defendant in its written
statement, such a course is not legally permissible.
6. It was next urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that in view of provisions
contained under Sub-section (1) of Section 21 CPC the
prayer for amendment cannot be said to be a belated
one because the issues are yet to be framed in the
case. It is true that the suit is still at a
preliminary stage and issues are yet to be framed in
the case but that by itself is not sufficient to
permit the petitioner to amend the written statement
so as to incorporate the said plea with regard to the
jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
then urged that the plea that the trial court has
though allowed the petitioner to incorporate the
pleas raised in paragraph 5(a) of the written
statement, the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to
raise the objection with regard to jurisdiction. I,
however, see no merit in this contention also.
8. Having considered the matter this Court
is of the considered opinion that the learned trial
court was justified in declining permission to the
petitioner to raise the objection/plea with regard to
the lack of territorial jurisdiction once such a plea
was not raised at the earliest stage and the
petitioner-defendant having not disputed the same on
any ground in the written statement and having
submitted to the jurisdiction of Delhi Court. The
petition being devoid of any merit is hereby
dismissed.