GWASHA LAL Vs. R B THAKAR KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard counsel for the parties on the amendment matter. This is an application for amendment of the plaint by adding certain averments in paragraphs 4 and 9 of the original plaint. The application has been resisted by the defendant who has filed objections to the application for amendment. I have carefully perused the plaint as also the written statement and I find that the amendment sought for does not change the nature of the suit.

(2.) I am unable to hold that such an amendment seeks to introduce a new and inconsistent case. Even if the amendment had introduced inconsistent pleas to be taken in the alternative it could have been allowed, as it is well settled that the plaintiff is entitled to take inconsistent pleas in the alternative. This would be clear from the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 177 (A), which are as follows:

(3.) FOR these reasons the first ground on which the amendment has been resisted must be overruled.