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. 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 addi-

tional pleas. Paragraph 25 states that the agreement dated 7

April, 1967 is appli-

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 defendants/appellants 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 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 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

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.

S.R. Appeal

dismissed.