Judgment:
K. Kannan, J.
1. The application for amendment in the plaint was sought by the plaintiff, the mother of the deceased person, who had earlier filed the suit for relief of injunction against the grant of retrial benefits to the defendants, later filed an application for amendment seeking for a declaratory decree that plaintiffs were alone entitled to be treated as legal heirs of the deceased and that all the assets shall be given to them. The basis of the amendment was denial of the status of the 1st defendant as the widow of the deceased employee and urging that the first defendant had already been married to another person and the so-called marriage with the deceased subsequently without dissolution of the earlier marriage would be null and yoid and that the first defendant would not to be entitled to claim herself to be the heir of the deceased employee. The amendment also brought in further averments denying the status of defendants 2 and 3 as the children of the deceased person and also stating in the alternative that if at all, there could only be illegitimate children who claim any right to the assets of the deceased employee in relation to the retrial benefits.
2. The Court, while ordering the amendment, has taken note of the fact that the plaintiff shall have a full opportunity to state all the relevant facts which have come by the knowledge and a Court shall not allow the parties hyper-technical objections from entertaining pleas against amendment of pleadings.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the plaintiff had already admitted the defendant's entitlement to a fractional share and an amendment subsequently seeking for a plea denying the right of the defendant in loto was mutually inconsistent and destructive to the earlier pleadings. While normally a party shall not be permitted to amend the pleadings that would amount to resiling from admissions even, then this precept of law shall be applied with caution, depending on the facts and circumstances. After all, even an admission could be explained or it could be urged that an admission was made by mistake and that the truth was different from what was admitted. The law relating to evidence and admissions shall be so seen that the courts do not fend away truth from coming at trial. If there is an occasion for a party to prove that the statement was wrongly made and the truth was something else, the court not permit the truth to be a casualty on the premise' that admissions are paramount. It shall be possible for the defendant to urge that what was admitted was indeed true and what was sought to be done by an amendment was inconsistent to the earlier pleadings. Such contentions which would be available by offering to a party an opportunity to file an additional statement to the amended pleadings will sufficiently safeguard the interests of the defendants, who feel aggrieved about the order permitting amendment.
4. The order of the Court below permitting the amendment to the plaint is under the circumstances fully justified and reserving the liberty to the defendant to file an additional written statement on the amendment pleadings, the Civil revision is accordingly dismissed.