- (1.) THE opposite parties field Title Suit No. 284 of 1976 in the 4th Court of the learned munsif at Alipore against the petitioner, subsequently re-numbered on transfer to the 3rd additional munsif at Alipore as Title Suit No. 86 of 1984, claiming for the following reliefs :- "a) A decree declaring that the plaintiffs have been and are Class iii employees; b) A decree declaring that the decision caused by the defendants declaring the plaintiffs as Class- IV staff is illegal, improper, in valid and inoperative and must be set aside; c) Ad-interim, temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 and 3 from giving further effect to the decision dated 3. 10. 75 for demotion of the plaintiffs to Class- IV; d) Mandatory injunction directing status-quo ante, before the date of taking decision for demotion namely; e) Costs; f) Such other and further relief/reliefs as the plaintiffs may be found entitled to. "
(2.) THE opposite parties, in paragraph 1 of the plaint, which is quoted below, had stated inter alia, that they were working as "laboratory assistants" under the defendant No. 1 in the suit. "1. That the plaintiffs who are all moderately educated (Higher secondary Passed or with higher educational achievements) were recruited and appointed by the defendant No. 1 for technical jobs in the Science Laboratory of the Collee under the defendant No. 1, on a different dates in the capacity of Laboratory Assistants to help the students in the laboratory work. " The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 namely, the petitioners, contested the suit by filing their joint written statement denying and disputing the allegations made in the Plaint. In paragraph 8 of the written statement it was stated inter alia that the statements contained in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Plaints were substantially correct. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the written statement wherein it was stated inter alia, that the plaintiffs/opposite parties were appointed as "laboratory Attendants" and not "laboratory Assistants" as alleged in the plaint, and due to oversight, such fact was not incorporated in the written statement, and prayed for addition of the following sentence in paragraph 8 of the written statement:-The plaintiffs were appointed as laboratory attendants" and not "laboratory assistants" as stated". The said application although was opposed by the opposite parties, was ultimately allowed by the learned munsif on 27. 8. 84, against which, the opposite parties moved a revisional application in this Hon'ble Court, upon which, a Rule being C. R. No. 3224 of 1984 was issued, which was ultimately made absolute by Mohitosh Majumder, J. on 29th August, 1991 inter alia, with the observations that the aforesaid application for amendment should be heard do novo by the trial court. Thereafter, the learned munsif by his orders No. 120 and 127 dated 4. 8. 92 respectively, rejected the petitioner's said application for amendment, holding inter alia, that an amendment, which is a direct negation- of a party's own admission in pleading, cannot be allowed and relied upon a decision of the Delhi high Court in AIR 1987 Delhi 177, to hold that a written statement cannot toe amended to withdraw admission made therein. The teamed munsif further held that the whole case based on the ground that the plaintiffs were "laboratory Assistants" and if the defendants were allowed to amend tike written statement as prayed for, 'then the proposed amendment would do injustice to the plaintiff. The said two orders are the subject matters of challenge in the present revisional application.
(3.) IT is contended inter alia, by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the amendment as sought for. should have been allowed by like learned munsif instead of rejecting the same, inasmuch as, the imposed amendment if allowed, would not change the front of the defence of the defendants/in any way, nor it would amount to withdrawal of any alleged admission made by the defendants in their written statement. Secondly, since it is specifically stated in the application for amendment, that due to oversight it was not stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs were "laboratory Attendants". Such statement was quite sufficient to explain the reason for which such amendment was sought for. Lastly, even assuming out admitting that the defendants had made certain admission in paragraph 8 of the original written statement and by the proposed amendment they sought to withdraw the same, sufficient explanation had been given in such application for withdrawing such alleged admission, and it is not unknown in law, that even an admission can be withdrawn if the reasons for such withdrawal are well explained. Moreover, defendants are also permitted under the law to take contradictory pleas in the written statement.;