In civil litigation, a party is bound by its own pleadings. Indian courts have treated clear admissions in pleadings as binding and, in appropriate cases, as operating in the nature of estoppel.

In Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd v. Golden Chariot Airport & Another, (2010) 10 SCC 422, the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that a party cannot take inconsistent positions in court to the prejudice of the opposite side. Referring to an earlier decision of the Calcutta High Court, the Court noted:

“Ashutosh Mookerjee, J. speaking for the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Dwijendra Narain Roy v. Joges Chandra Deg, held that it is an elementary rule that a party litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent positions in court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate to the detriment of his opponent. This wholesome doctrine, the learned Judge held, applies not only to successive stages of the same suit, but also to another suit than the one in which the position was taken up, provided the second suit grows out of the judgment in the first.”

In Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 85, the Supreme Court considered the effect of admissions in pleadings and underlined that such admissions can bind the party making them. The Court held that:

“An admission made in a pleading is not to be treated in the same manner as an admission in a document. An admission made by a party to the lis is admissible against him proprio vigore.”

The Court further explained that:

“A thing admitted in view of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act need not be proved. Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 6 provides that even a vague or evasive denial may be treated to be an admission in which event the court may pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Relying on or on the basis thereof a suit, having regard to the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure may also be decreed on admission. It is one thing to say that without resiling from an admission, it would be permissible to explain under what circumstances the same had been made or it was made under a mistaken belief or to clarify one’s stand inter alia in regard to the extent or effect of such admission, but it is another thing to say that a person can be permitted to totally resile therefrom.”

On the limits of amendment when admissions are already on record, the Court referred to Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ladha Ram & Co., (1976) 4 SCC 320 and approved the following reasoning:

“A Three Judge Bench of this Court speaking through Ray, CJ in Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ladha Ram & Co., [(1976) 4 SCC 320] opined: 10. It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paras 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. The High Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the trial court.”

In Sukhbiri Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1486, the Supreme Court again emphasised that admissions in pleadings are admissible proprio vigore and can determine foundational facts such as the starting point of limitation. The Court observed:

“In view of the legal position obtained from the decision in Nusli Neville Wadia’s case the following decisions also assume relevance. In the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani this Court held that an admission made in the pleadings by a party is admissible in evidence proprio vigore. Equally well settled is the principle of law that an admission made by a party in his pleadings is admissible against him proprio vigore (see the decisions in Ranganayakamma & Anr. v. K.S. Prakash (Dead) By LRs. & Ors. and Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors. v. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo.

17. In the context of the usage of the expression ‘admitted facts’ in paragraph 52 of the decision in Nusli Neville Wadia’s case and the word ‘admission’ employed in the National Insurance Co. Ltd. case a reference to Sections 17, 18 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act would not be inappropriate. A conjoint reading of the said provision would reveal that ‘statements’ by a party to proceedings are admissions and facts admitted need not be proved.”

Read together, these decisions show that once a party has consciously taken a stand in its pleadings and gained advantage from it, the law does not permit a casual change of position, and any attempt to withdraw or explain an admission must be justified through a properly sought amendment of the pleading.