# MODI SPINNING & WEA VINO MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR v. LADHA RAM & CO

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 728
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-09-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 190 of 1976
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/modi-spinning-wea-vino-mills-co-ltd-anr-v-ladha-ram-co-6957
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Pleadings, a111c11d111e11ts to-A 111c11d111e11t to the ple11di11)is !O
i11trod11ce
an
entirely different case, under the guise of permissible inconsiste/11 pleas which
is likely lo cawe prejt1dice to the other side cannot be al/owed-Cil'il Rrnetdure
Code (Act V of 1908)-0rder VI. Rule 17.
In a suit for decree for Rs. 1.30,000/- instituted by the respondent/plaintiff
in May, 1971. the appellants/defendants filed their written statement admitting
that by virtue of an agreement elated 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 substituting paragraph:; 25 and 26 with a new paragraph in which they took the fresh plea
that the plaintifl'. 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 sub,titntion
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 defendants in the written statement.
Jf such amendments are allowed,
the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity
of extracting the admissionl from the defendants. [729 G]
C1v1L 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 t-;o. 1004/74.
S. C. Manchanda and M. L. Jain, for the appellants.
F
0. P. Malhotra, N. S. Das Bahl, Y. P. Clwdha and Sat Pal,
for
G"
H
the respondent.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
728
MODI SPINNING & WEA VINO MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR ..
v.
LADHA RAM & CO.
September 23, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
Pleadings, a111c11d111e11ts to-A 111c11d111e11t to the ple11di11)is !O
i11trod11ce
an
entirely different case, under the guise of permissible inconsiste/11 pleas which
is likely lo cawe prejt1dice to the other side cannot be al/owed-Cil'il Rrnetdure
Code (Act V of 1908)-0rder VI. Rule 17.
In a suit for decree for Rs. 1.30,000/- instituted by the respondent/plaintiff
in May, 1971. the appellants/defendants filed their written statement admitting
that by virtue of an agreement elated 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 substituting paragraph:; 25 and 26 with a new paragraph in which they took the fresh plea
that the plaintifl'. 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 sub,titntion
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 defendants in the written statement.
Jf such amendments are allowed,
the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity
of extracting the admissionl from the defendants. [729 G]
C1v1L 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 t-;o. 1004/74.
S. C. Manchanda and M. L. Jain, for the appellants.
F
0. P. Malhotra, N. S. Das Bahl, Y. P. Clwdha and Sat Pal,
for
G"
H
the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. This appeal is by Special Lca\'C from the
judgment
dated 8 August, 1975 of the High Court of Allahabad. The appellants
are defendant.s 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 additional pleas.
Paragraph 25 states that the agreement dated 7 April. l 96 7 is appli-·
(
MODI SPG. & W. MILLS V. LADHA RAM & CO. (Ray, C.J.)
729
cable to the transactions in which the plaintiff works as stockist-cumA
distributor of the defendants.
The defendants further allege in paragraph 25 that the agreement is not applicable to transactions in which
the pl~intiff acts as a _principal. In paragr~ph 26 the defendants/appellants 1!1 the ~lternative allege that even 1f agreement dated 7 April,
1967 1s applied to the dealings in suit, plaintiff's position is merely
that o~ 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
B
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 substitution of two new paragraph 25
and 26.
The p·roposed 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 !he 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 standz to file the suit.
The trial court rejected the application of the defendants for amendment. One of the reasons given by the trial court is that the defendants
wanted to resile from admissions made in paragraph 25 of the written
stalfement.
The trial court said that "the repudiation of the clear admission is motivated to deprive the plaintiff of the valuable right accrued
to !Jim 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.
c
!}
E.
F
It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the
G.
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 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.
H
We are told that the defendants proposed
amendments to two
-~
other paragraphs of written statement. These are paragraphs 4 :md J 9 ·
·730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
.A
of the written statement.
These amendments were also
rightly
rejected.
B
For the forgoing reasons the appeal must fail.
The defendants/
appellants cannot be allowed to amend the written 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 issnes 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 t"> do so.
The costs of this appeal will be paid by the appellants to the
respondent.
Record can be sent back to the trial court as early as possible.
:S.R.
Appeal dismissed.
..
'