The Code of Civil Procedure does not prohibit inconsistent pleadings, and that there is nothing to prevent either party from setting up two or more inconsistent sets of material facts and claiming relief thereunder in the alternative.
A plaintiff may rely upon several different rights alternatively, although they may be inconsistent; so a defendant may raise, by his statement of defence, without leave, as many distinct and separate, and therefore inconsistent, defences as he may think proper.
This is fully established by the decision of the Full Bench in Narendra v. Abhay Charan (1907) 34 Cal. 51 and illustrations of the application of this doctrine to inconsistent claims by the plaintiff may be found in Mati Lal v. Judisthir (1915) 22 C.L.J. 254 and Official Assignee v. Bidyasundar (1919) 30 C.L.J. 428 and to conflicting defences by the defendant may be gathered from Purnendu v. Dwijendra (1908) 8 C.L.J. 289 and Bank Behari v. Rachialal (1912) 15 C.L.J. 439.
(Reported in AIR 1924 Cal 467 - Bhuban Mohini Dasi And Ors. vs Kumud Bala Dasi And Ors.)
No comments:
Post a Comment