Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus it is evident that the opposite party took contradictory and mutually destructive stand before two fora. 43. Petitioner filed a written objection against

Thus it is evident that the opposite party took contradictory and mutually destructive stand before two fora. 43. Petitioner filed a written objection against

action. He also submitted that the proposed amendments being contradictory and mutually destructive with the original pleadings cannot be allowed to be incorporated ... original pleading cannot be said to be contradictory to and mutually destructive of each other. The aforesaid judgment relied upon by Mr. Banerjee does

reported at (2007) 5 SCC 602. He further submits that mutually destructive pleas cannot be allowed to be taken by way of amendment of plaint ... sought to replace certain facts by deleting certain portions observed that mutually destructive pleas cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment

reported at (2007) 5 SCC 602. He further submits that mutually destructive pleas cannot be allowed to be taken by way of amendment of plaint ... sought to replace certain facts by deleting certain portions observed that mutually destructive pleas cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment

appellate stage. The plea based on title and adverse possession are mutually destructive. It is well settled that contradictory and mutually destructive pleas cannot

party submits that the proposed amendment is not only contradictory but mutually destructive with the original pleadings. He submits that it is the specific case

case which is not only inconsistent but contradictory and mutually destructive with the case made out in the original written statement. That apart the petitioner

written statement. It is well-settled that contradictory and mutually destructive pleadings cannot be allowed in written statement. After going through the proposed amendment, this ... considered view that the proposed amendment is not only contradictory but mutually destructive to the original pleadings. This Court finds that the defendant is trying

line of defence by way of amendment which is mutually destructive with the original pleading which is not permissible in law. Though there