Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Admission in pleadings meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Admission in pleadings

Admission in pleadings legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2014 CLD 1341 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Ss. 11, 10 & 7Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XII, R. 6Suit for recoveryAdmission in pleadingsInterim decree to the extent of the admitted amountPlaintiff Bank sought interim decree for the amount admitted by the defendants in their application for leave to defendValidity

Amount was admitted by the defendants as the net amount due and payable to the plaintiff Bank, whereas the suit was filed by the plaintiff was for a greater amount

Section 11 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 read with O.XII, R.6, C.P.C., empowered the court to pass an interim decree on basis of admitted amount

High Court passed a preliminary interim decree for the admitted amount and directed that arguments for leave to defend for the balance amount shall be heard on a later date

Application was allowed, accordingly.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Admission in pleadings", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124946736

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Admission in pleadings"

CLC 1984
Civil Appeals Nos. 26 and 27 of 1983, decided on 24th December, 1983.

1984 C L C 609

MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑Respondent

Court: Azad J & K
MLD 2012
2011-October-12

2012 M L D 1254

GHULAM ALI and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. GULZAR BEGUM and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
SCMR 2002
Civil Appeal No. 584 of 2000, decided on 11th October, 2001.

2002 S C M R 326

Mst. BASWAR SULTAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. ADEEBA ALVI‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
YLR 2014
Civil Revision No.1125-P of 2012, decided on 26th April, 2013.

2014 Y L R 1608

FATEH KHAN — Petitioner Versus NASEEB GUL — Respondent

Court: Peshawar
MLD 1995
Civil Revision No.308\D of 1990, heard on 25th October, 1994.

1995 M L D 690

Mst. NIAZ BEGUM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus WARIS KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
SCMR 1988
---S.153, O.VI, Rr.l & 17, O.VIII, R.5, O.XIII, R.6 and O.XIV, R.2--Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss.31 & 58--Pleadings--Amendment of--Admissions, proof of-- Defendants- appellants, in suit of respondents, making application for trial of issue regarding unsoundness of mind of plaintiff as a preliminary issue Plaintiff respondent filing a written reply to such application but later noticing that due to clerical mistake the word had been inadvertently omitted making application for necessary amendment of his reply--Trial Court coming to conclusion that the amendment sought for was justified and allowing same--District Judge, however, in revision petition of appellants, setting aside order of Trial Court and dismissing application of respondent for amendment /correction of the reply on solitary ground that O . VI , R .17, C . P. C . was not applicable to the proceedings of such an application as the reply sought to be amended did not fall within ambit of "pleadings" in O.VI, R.1, C.P.C.--Order of District Judge having been challenged in constitutional petition by respondent, High Court declaring same to be without lawful authority and quashed same--District Judge found to have observed in his order that in reply to application for trying the issue in question as a preliminary issue respondent had "reiterated that he was a man of unsound mind" but later on "to avoid the consequences of said admission regarding his unsoundness of mind, the respondent made an application seeking amendment of his written reply" and on such assumption holding that the power of amendment vesting in the Court only extended to pleadings under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. and, therefore, the Court had no power to allow amendment of written reply to an application--District Judge, held, wholly misconceived the law by proceeding on such basis and totally ignored the general power of amendment vesting in a Civil Court under S.153, C.P.C. and based his order on a conclusion prima facie not sustainable on the record before him, namely, that the respondent was avoiding the consequence of his admission regarding unsoundness of his mind--Court is empowered to pass judgment on admissions but proviso to O.VIII, R.5, C.P.C. which is a reproduction of proviso to S.58, Evidence Act, confers upon the Court a discretion to require any fact admitted in the written statement to be proved otherwise than by such admissions--Admissions are not conclusive proof of matters admitted--Admission made by mistake could be permitted by Court to be withdrawn by amendment, even if such admission was made in pleadings--Court had already framed an issue for the purpose to go to trial on question of unsoundness of mind of the respondent which would be decided on the evidence adduced by the parties as it was an issue of fact and law--Application was made by appellants under O.XIV, R.2, C.P.C. when plaintiffs had nearly concluded their evidence at the trial praying that the said issue be tried as a preliminary issue--Reference to facts made in application was merely narrative in character and not essential or germane to the prayer made in application and reply to the relevant part was not of much significance for the decision of the application--So-called admission in reply could not be said to have been made for purposes of the suit--Court, in such circumstances, would not have been justified to treat such irrelevant matter to constitute an admission for purposes of decision of the issue in question--Party would be entitled to an opportunity to contest the issue on merits on evidence adduced, for which the Court had sufficient power.

1988 S C M R 322

MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR and another — Appellants Versus LAL MUHAMMAD and 2 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
CLC 2005
Writ Petition No.5238 of 2004, decided on 21st February, 2005.

2005 C L C 1101

ZAHRO‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.G. KHAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLD 2014
2014-February-17

2014 C L D 1341

BANK OF PUNJAB through SVP — Plaintiff Versus T&N PAKISTAN PVT. LTD. through Chief Executive and 7 others — Defendants

Court: Lahore
MLD 1992
High Court Appeal No.22 of 1991, decided on 7th July, 1991.

1992 M L D 1007

STATE ASSOCIATES‑‑‑Appellant Versus M/s. FARBEN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT S.PA. and another‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
YLR 1999
N/A

1999 Y L R 2029

Mst. AZIZAN BIBI and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus TUFAIL MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore

Dictionary Search

Advertisement

Explore Legal Library

Pakistan Law Portal is an advanced digital repository of legal precedents, statutes, and judicial terms. Utilize citation search or keywords to discover relevant case law.

Back to Library