MODI SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR. versus LADHA RAM & CO.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 728 · Decided: 23-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 substitut-
ing 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-cum-
A 
distributor of the defendants. 
The defendants further allege in para-
graph 25 that the agreement is not applicable to transactions in which 
the pl~intiff acts as a _principal. In paragr~ph 26 the defendants/appel-
lants 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 plain-
tiff 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 amend-
ment. One of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.