JAFIR AHMAD Vs. MEHDI HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.Ajit, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.A. Khan for the respondent.

(2.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that admission made in written statement can always be withdrawn or explained away by the defendant and even inconsistent plea can be taken in the pleadings. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Jyoti Sahay, 1984 Supp1 SCC 594 and Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and Another., 1995 3 AWC 1872

(3.) The aforesaid two Judges' judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner did not notice three Judges' judgment in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another v. Ladha Ram and Co., 1978 4 AllLR 404 wherein it has been held that it is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paras 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.