As per the well established legal principles, it is permissible for a party in a civil suit to take alternative or even mutually inconsistent pleas, but they should not be mutually destructive of each other. This means that these mutually inconsistent pleas should be capable to coexist with each other and should not be so inconsistent as to make it impossible to prove one plea unless the other is given up.
Of course, it is within your rights to object to the mutually inconsistent stands taken by the defendant in the same civil suit and point out the same to the court. However, it is for the court to decide whether such mutually inconsistent pleas taken by the party are destructive of each other or whether they can be permissible.
In this regard, I may point out that in the case of Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 177 : 1951 SCR 277, the Supreme Court observed that:
“But it was certainly open to the plaintiff to make an alternative case to that effect and make a prayer in the alternative for a decree for money even if the allegations of the money being paid in pursuance of a contract of sale could not be established by evidence. The fact that such a prayer would have been inconsistent with the other prayer is not really material. A plaintiff may rely upon different rights alternatively and there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code to prevent a party from making two or more inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming relief thereunder in the alternative.”
Relying upon the above decision, in the case of Arundhati Mishra (Smt) v. Sri Ram Charitra Pandey, (1994) 2 SCC 29, the Supreme Court held that it is settled law that it is open to the parties to raise even mutually inconsistent pleas and if the relief could be founded on the alternative plea it could be granted, and that if the facts are admitted in the written statement, the relief could be granted to the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence though inconsistent pleas were raised.
However, in the case of Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain v. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, (2009) 5 SCC 713, the Supreme Court held that while alternative and inconsistent pleas could be raised but they should not be mutually destructive of each other. It held:
“Pleadings of the parties, it is trite, are required to be read as a whole. The defendants, although are entitled to raise alternative and inconsistent plea but should not be permitted to raise pleas which are mutually destructive of each other.”
This is general position of law on this issue. So, raise your objection before the court and try to prove that the mutually inconsistent stands taken by the defendant are so inconsistent that they are mutually destructive of each other.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
