http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MODI SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LADHA RAM & CO.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/09/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR  680            1977 SCR  (1) 728  1976 SCC  (4) 320  CITATOR INFO :  R          1988 SC1362  (4)

ACT:             Pleadings, amendments to--Amendment to tile pleadings to         introduce   an entirely different case, under the  guise  of         permissible  inconsistent  pleas which is  likely  to  cause         prejudice to the other side cannot be allowed--Civil  Proce-         dure Code (Act V of 1908)--Order VI. Rule 17.

HEADNOTE:              In  a suit for decree for Rs. 1,30,000/-  instituted  by         the  respondent/plaintiff in May, 1971,  the  appellants/de-         fendants  filed  their written statement admitting  that  by         virtue  of an agreement dated April 7, 1967,  the  plaintiff         worked as their Stockist-cum-Distributor.  After three years         the  defendants  filed an  interlocutory  application  under         Order VI, Rule 17 to amend the written statement by  substi-         tuting  paragraphs 25 and 26 with a new paragraph  in  which         they took the fresh plea that the plaintiff was a mercantile         agent-cum-purchaser.   The  trial court  rejected  the  said         application  and the High Court, in revision,  affirmed  the         judgment of the trial court.         Dismissing the appeal-by special leave the Court,             HELD: It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made  in         pleadings.   The  defendants  cannot be  allowed  to  change         completely the case and substitute an entirely different and         new  case.  In the instant case, the effect of  substitution         of  paragraphs  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 defend-         ants  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. [729 G]

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 190 of.1976.             Appeal  by special leave from the  judgment  and   order         dated 8-8-1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       No. 1004/74.         S.C. Manchanda and M.L. Jain, for the appellants.         O.P. Malhotra, N.S. Das Bahl, Y.P. Chadha and Sat Pal,   for         the respondent.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             RAY,  C.J.  This  appeal is by Special  Leave  from  the         judgment  dated 8 August, 1975 of the High Court of  Allaha-         bad.   The appellants are defendants and the  respondent  is         the plaintiff in suit out of which this appeal arises.             The plaintiff’s suit is for a decree for Rs.  1,30,000/-         on the cause of action as laid in the plaint.         The suit was instituted sometime in the month of May, 1971.         The defendants filed written statement.             Two paragraphs of the written statement contained  addi-         tional pleas. Paragraph 25 states that the agreement dated 7         April, 1967 is appli-         729         cable  to the transactions in which the plaintiff  works  as         stockist-cumdistributor  of the defendants.  The  defendants         further  allege  in paragraph 25 that the agreement  is  not         applicable to transactions in which the plaintiff acts as  a         principal, In paragraph 26 the defendants/appellants in  the         alternative  allege  that even if agreement dated  7  April,         1967  is applied to the dealings in suit, plaintiff’s  posi-         tion  is  merely that of an agent of the defendants  and  as         such plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages from the         defendants for non-supply of its own goods for sale  through         the plaintiff.             The  defendants/appellants approximately 3  years  after         the filing of the written statement made an application  for         amendment of the written statement.  The proposed amendments         were for deletion of paragraphs 25 and 26 and for  substitu-         tion of two new paragraph 25 and 26.  The proposed amendment         in para 25 was that by virtue of the agreement the plaintiff         was appointed a mercantile agent and the plaintiff acted  in         that  capacity  in  placing orders on  the  defendants.  The         defendants  further denied the allegation of  the  plaintiff         that the plaintiff placed orders with the defendants in  the         plaintiff’s  capacity as a purchaser.  The  defendants  also         alleged  that the plaintiff throughout acted as an agent  of         the  defendants.  In paragraph 26 of the proposed  amendment         it  was  alleged by the defendants that being  a  mercantile         agent and an agent of the defendants in accordance with  the         terms of the agreement, the plaintiff has no locus standi to         file the suit.             The trial court rejected the application of the  defend-         ants  for amendment. One of the reasons given by  the  trial         court  is that the defendants wanted to resile  from  admis-         sions  made in paragraph 25 of the written  statement.   The         trial  court said that "the repudiation of the clear  admis-         sion  is motivated to deprive the plaintiff of the  valuable         right  accrued  to him and it is against  law."   The  trial         court held the application for amendment to be not bonafide.             The High Court on revision affirmed the judgment of  the         trial court and said that by means of amendment the  defend-         ants  wanted to introduce an entirely different case and  if         such amendments were permitted it would prejudice the  other         side.             The decision of the trial court is correct.  The defend-         ants cannot be allowed to change completely the case made in         paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statement and substitute         an entirely different and new case.             It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in plead-         ings but the effect of substitution of paragraphs 25 and  26         is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       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  irre-         trievably  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.             We are told that the defendants proposed  amendments  to         two  other paragraphs of written statement. These are  para-         graphs 4 and l 9         730         of  the  written  statement.  These  amendments   were  also         rightly rejected.             For  the  forgoing reasons the appeal  must  fail.   The         defendants, appellants cannot be allowed to amend the  writ-         ten statement  in the manner suggested.             The  two alternative pleas of the defendants as  alleged         in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statement are  there.         The parties will be able to make their rival contentions  on         the pleadings as to the issues to be raised. The  defendants         wish to raise issues on those paragraph 25 and 26.   Counsel         for  the plaintiff states that it is open to the  defendants         to  apply  for the framing of the issues.  They will  be  at         liberty to do so.             The  costs of this appeal will be  paid by  the   appel-         lants to the respondent.         Record  can  be  sent back to the trial court  as  early  as         possible.         S.R.                                                  Appeal         dismissed.         731