Retraction of Admissions in Civil Procedure: A Jurisprudential Analysis of Retractions in India

Through an examination of case law and provisions in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908¹ (CPC) and the Evidence Act, 1872², the study highlights how unclear standards for retractions disrupt the adversarial system’s core aims: Establishing truth while ensuring prompt dispute resolution. It critiques the exploitation of retractions for tactical gains, where parties use and later retract admissions to their advantage, leading to delays, increased costs, and reduced judicial effectiveness. The paper proposes a structured four-prong test to standardise retraction practices, discouraging misuse while reinforcing procedural integrity. This framework prioritises consistency, accountability, and justice, offering a path towards a more reliable approach to managing admissions in India’s legal landscape.

Chapter I: Introduction to law of retraction of admissions in India

In evidence law, an admission means to voluntarily acknowledge the truth of a fact.³ In Civil Procedure Code, admission of facts can be made in pleadings (Orders 7 and 8)⁴, or during examination by court (Order 10 Rules 1 and 2)⁵, in answer to interrogatories (Order 11 Rules 8 and 22)⁶, on notice (Order 12 Rule 4)⁷, on oath (Order 10 Rule 2⁸ and Order 18 Rule 3⁹), by agreement of parties (Order 23 Rule 3)¹⁰. Retractions are requests made to the court for a statement earlier claimed to be true to be withdrawn. In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi¹¹, the Supreme Court clarified that admissions are substantive evidence, they are the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and they can be successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.

In India, admissions made in pleadings can be retracted by amending them under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908¹². Similarly, statements earlier admitted can be retracted via affidavits. In Pullangoda Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, it was established by the Supreme Court that retractions from admissions are permissible in law and it is open to the person who made this admission to prove that it was incorrect.¹³ Retractions form an important part of procedural law for their effect on the evidentiary value of admitted statements.

The problem in the Indian legal system with respect to the law of retractions is twofold: Firstly, there is no standardised application of the law, with different courts applying different factors while determining retractions. Secondly, the law on retractions is still developing. For instance, while time is considered a relevant factor, courts have not dwelled on setting a time frame or created a limitation period, which is an obstacle to a uniform application of law.

In an adversarial system, the information flows from the party to the Judge and the Judge has a passive role in fact-finding. It is well established that the goals of an adversarial system are not merely truth finding, but the determination of truth balanced with other values such as speedy dispute resolution and cost efficiency. This paper questions the place of retractions in such a setting and argues for a high standard for allowing retractions by addressing the problems of a low standard.

Further, this paper proposes a test to standardise the law of retractions in India. It does so by analysing numerous cases of retractions in the Indian jurisprudence and the factors contributing to the rejection or acceptance of retractions. A reasonably high standard must be imposed for retracting admissions that allow retractions only in certain conditions, considering its high evidentiary value. Such a standard ensures that admissions are not mindlessly made and retracted. It works to protect the best interests of the court, saving the already scarce time and resources of the court by deterring retractions and promoting mindful admissions by the parties.

Chapter II: The incompatibility of the adversarial system with retractions

Retractions enable parties to essentially take back a statement they earlier admitted to be true. This process has to be understood in light of larger goals of Civil Procedure Code i.e. the ascertainment of truth and allied ends like cost efficiency, speedy dispute settlement, etc. The adversarial system is rooted in the idea that lawyers on opposing sides compete to protect their client’s interests. A core principle in policy-making is the belief that humans act as rational, self-interested individuals, making choices that maximise benefits while minimising costs. Consequently, an adversarial lawyer, being human, will naturally pursue actions that offer personal rewards.¹⁴ The adversarial setting reinforces the objective of winning cases through various economic and professional incentives. Essentially, the primary aim of a lawyer in this system is to “win, if possible, without breaking the law”, meaning their role is to resolve issues in favour of their client and uphold the client’s interests to the fullest extent.¹⁵

Against this backdrop, there is a threat of rampant misuse of provisions of retractions. A low threshold for retracting admissions acts as an incentive for the parties to make admissions strategically, with the intent to retract them later if circumstances change. This can lead to manipulative practices, where parties use admissions as a strategic tool for winning the case, instead of a sincere acknowledgement of facts. This also weakens the credibility and integrity of admissions, considering the weight given to their evidentiary value. Further, if retractions are allowed too freely, it can complicate the determination of truth, which would require courts to delve deeper into disputed facts that might otherwise have been straightforward. This imposes a cost of time and resources on the system.

India’s procedural laws, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹⁶, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), and the Evidence Act, 1872 are rooted in utilitarian principles and were significantly influenced by thinkers like Bentham and Stephen.¹⁷ Bentham criticised the common law of the eighteenth century as a “complex thicket of rules and mysterious procedures”, deeming it inefficient and unnecessarily perplexing.¹⁸ He championed the principles of clarity and certainty, advocating for laws to be reconstructed based on a new, rational framework guided by utilitarian values of predictability and transparency.¹⁹ The objective was to have reason prevail over instincts and emotions, moving away from abstract notions of justice.²⁰ This approach involved simplifying the law by consolidating numerous, varied case laws into a unified Code, aligning with what twinning describes as the Rationalist Traditions.²¹ Central to these traditions is the belief that law should be logical, rational, and its application predictable and deductive — a concept known as the rectitude of decision-making, which emphasises the consistent application of existing laws to factual situations.

The drafting of the CPC reflects this intent, aiming to endow the legal system with “symmetry and grandeur”.²² This is evident in the preamble to the CPC²³, which states that the Code seeks to “consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the courts of civil judicature”. The desire of the drafters to bring certainty and order to Civil Procedure Code is sufficiently clear.

The effectiveness of this codification is significantly deterred when considering the manner in which the Indian judiciary has interpreted the doctrine of retractions. As will be shown in the next chapter, there lacks a uniform application of principles with respect to accepting retractions. While some courts only deemed time to be relevant, some courts also considered if there were valid reasons to be relevant, while other courts checked for corroborative evidence. Thus, there is a lack of uniformity in the principles applicable in cases of retractions. This highlights how the values of clarity, predictability and certainty at the core of the CPC are lost via the unruly application of principles on retraction.

Further, it has been well-established by various scholars that arriving at the truth is not the only goal of Civil Procedure Code, it has to be balanced with other values of the system such as cost efficiency and speedy redressal of disputes.²⁴ The current lack of uniformity threatens these values. The lack of uniformity necessarily sets a lower standard for retractions as it does not consider all the factors that must be considered. It erodes judicial efficiency as easily allowing retractions results in forcing the court to revisit settled facts, diverting resources away from other cases. Admissions are considered to be substantial evidence, and allowing easy retractions makes it harder for courts to rely on the statements being made. Further, retractions also carry costs with respect to time. It can lead to a prolonged trial, burdening the courts as well as the parties. Retractions also challenge the principle of finality, as parties can engage in endless litigation and appeals. This directly undermines the goals of speed and efficiency of the system, slowing down the overall administration of justice.

Chapter III: A law and economics analysis

In this light, a law and economics analysis of the unruly application of principles on retractions is apposite, given that the goal of such an approach is to maximise efficiency.

In law and economics terms, uncertainty is said to describe a situation wherein people cannot predictably ascribe legal consequences to possible courses of action.²⁵ This frequently happens when people do not know in advance where the legal standard will be set.²⁶ As explained previously, the non-uniform application of principles on retractions has rendered the ascertainment of the position of law on a particular situation ambiguous. For example, a party seeking to retract has no clarity regarding whether such a retraction would be accepted by the court. Thus, the situation can be said to be uncertain. This uncertainty results in the enhancement of transaction costs.²⁷ Transaction costs are increased because a person will have to invest more resources to gather information and seek to predict how the judiciary will respond to his case. Additionally, these costs are wasteful and could have been used productively in the alternative. Further, as Calfee and Craswell show, uncertainty regarding the quantum of transaction costs seeks to overtly deter actors from engaging in socially productive behaviour.²⁸ Rather, if the judiciary were consistent in how it adjudicated on retractions, the transaction costs would have been much lower, and the question of law would not have been beset with confusion.

Once it is admitted that the position of law on a question is unclear, it is trite that subsequent litigations will have to be undertaken on the same subject owing to the uncertainty. In this way, it may be argued that the current practices on retraction actively go against the value of cost efficiency, which is a sacrosanct goal of Civil Procedure Code.

In the next chapter, this paper suggests a test for retraction with the aim of standardising the principles and creating a uniform standard for retracting admissions, which would ultimately reduce transaction costs for both parties.

Chapter IV: The test for retractions

The test proposed in this paper has four prongs. Firstly, the time passed between the admission and its subsequent retraction. Secondly, corroborative evidence for such retraction sought to be made. Thirdly, reasons for retractions must be valid and adequate. Fourthly, prejudice to justice.

Test Prong 1: Time passed between the admission and its subsequent retraction

A limitation period needs to be developed for retractions. This paper suggests that retractions must be made at the earliest possible time unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. Time has been used as a factor to accept or reject retractions in multiple cases. An unexplainable delay in retracting admissions makes the retraction ineffective. Generally, retractions must be made at the earliest possible time.

In Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Mukesh R. Shah, the court held that a retraction, to be effective, has to be made by the declarant at the earliest point in time.²⁹ A retraction that is delayed would be considered an afterthought rather than a retraction.³⁰ Similarly, in S. Shyam Kumar v. CIT, it could be held that retractions after a huge gap or after a point of time lose their significance.³¹

In Sandeep Goyal v. CIT, the court considered time to be a factor in determining the relevancy of a retraction.³² In this case, there was an appeal filed against an incriminatory admission being considered by the lower court while deciding the matter even though it was later retracted by the declarant. The court ruled that the lower court did not make an error in relying upon the admission as two years had passed and the declarant had enough opportunity to retract the admission at an earlier stage. Similarly, in Param Anand Builders (P) Ltd. v. CIT³³, the court was of the view that the retraction of the statement could have been done the next day, but it was only sought to be retracted after four months. Thus, the court ignored the retraction of the statement.

In Navdeep Dhingra v. CIT³⁴, the court held that the belated retracting of the admission nearly two years after the admissions without a valid explanation of such delay or of pressure/coercion cannot be allowed. It further held that if the admission is not retracted immediately or within a reasonable time, the admission continues to be of substantive evidence and cannot be retracted.

Test Prong 2: Valid reasons for such retraction

Theoretically, considering the high value that is attached to admissions, a reasonably high standard must be imposed for their subsequent retraction. To meet this standard, the court must ensure that there is a reasonable explanation for the retraction to be effective.

The court in Hindustan Apparel Industries v. Fair Deal Corpn.³⁵ held that an admission does not cease to be an admission solely on the ground that it is retracted later. This holding suggests that a retraction must be supported by valid reasoning as well. In Sandeep Goyal v. CIT³⁶, the court held that for a retraction to be effective, valid reasons must be assigned by the one seeking to retract their admission. Similarly, the court in Surendra Bhatia v. Poonam Bhatia³⁷ held that admissions sought to be withdrawn must be supported by “cogent grounds” of such grounds to be considered retracted. Frequent retractions of statements without valid reasons reduce the credibility of the admission and will be seen as invalid ab initio, as held in Brij Bhushan Singal v. CIT³⁸.

A few reasons that can be considered valid are reasons such as admissions made under duress, coercion, undue influence or statements made under a mistaken belief of facts. In Param Anand Builders case³⁹, the court analysed the facts and held that the affidavits of retractions hold no evidentiary value as the court suspected that they must have been under coercion or duress. Here, the declarant was an employee and had made statements against the interests of his employer. In Hotel Kiran v. CIT⁴⁰, it was held that involuntary admissions have no evidentiary value and can be retracted. Further, statements made under a mistaken belief of facts can also be retracted, reiterating the holding in Satinder Kumar v. CIT⁴¹. In this case, the court held that if a person makes a standard on a mistaken understanding of facts or based on untrue facts, the statement must not be relied upon.

Test Prong 3: Corroborative evidence

For a retraction to be valid, there must be corroborative evidence proving the falsehood of the admission. This ensures reliability of admissions as well as protects against coercion or mistake.

In Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India⁴², the Court held that a retraction, to be effective, must be supported by adequate contemporaneous evidence. It further held that the onus is on the person who made the admission and retraction to support such retraction with evidence. Similarly, in Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal⁴³, the Supreme Court held that although admissions are not considered to be conclusive proof, a retraction imposes a burden of proof on the person making it to prove that the earlier admission is false. Thus, retractions require corroborated evidence to be effective.

Test Prong 4: Prejudice of either party

In the adversarial system, parties rely on the submissions and admissions of the other party for notice and make their case based on such submissions. If a party retracts an admission late into the proceedings, there is a high chance of unfairly prejudicing the opposing party who may have relied on the admission to build their case. It also prolongs the trial, adding costs to the opposite party. On the other hand, allowing an admission that was made involuntarily under duress or coercion also prejudices the other party. Thus, prejudice becomes an important factor when determining retractions.

There are a few cases in the Indian jurisprudence which reflect prejudice of the opposing party being considered by the courts. For instance, in Kohli One Housing & Development (P) Ltd. v. C.S. Aggarwal⁴⁴, the court held that the retraction should not seek to change the nature of the suit itself. In Rudrappa v. Gurunatha⁴⁵, the Court estopped the retraction of “definitive” admissions because the admissions had clearly acknowledged a matter directly in issue, which was a clear acknowledgement of the balance sale consideration of Rs 75,000 in the present case.

Statements made under a mistaken conception of facts also constitute prejudice, and as illustrated in the second prong, they are not appreciated by the courts as evidence. This furthers the values of prejudice and justice. Similarly, statements made under an incomplete understanding of documents or information are also threaded with caution. In Surinder Pal Verma v. CIT⁴⁶, the court held that a person is entitled to modify or amend their statement at a later point of time if at the time of making such statement, they were with incomplete knowledge.

Chapter V: Conclusion and final remarks

The current system is unreliable due to lack of uniformity. The goal of retractions, and by extension, that of the adjective law, is the realisation of truth along with some allied ends like speedy dispute resolution and cost efficiency. The Indian law on retractions has not been able to achieve this, and it has further failed to achieve another equally significant goal of every legal system: The goal of certainty and uniform application of the law. This leads to increased transaction costs. This paper thus sought to provide a framework for a standard application of law in retractions.

It proposed a four-prong approach to the law of retractions: Firstly, the time passed between the admission and its subsequent retraction. Secondly, corroborative evidence for such retraction sought to be made. Thirdly, reasons for retractions must be valid and adequate. Fourthly, prejudice to justice. This test seeks to impose a reasonably high standard for retractions to solve the problems of retractions in an adversarial setting.