Appeal No 190 of1976
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 8 8 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No 100474
SC Manchanda and ML Jain for the appellants
OP Malhotra NS Das Bahl YP Chadha and Sat Pal for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
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 130000 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 defendantsappellants 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 defendantsappellants 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 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
SR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
In a suit for decree for Rs 130000 instituted by the respondentplaintiff in May 1971 the appellantsde 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