Whether a litigant can take contradictory stand in same proceeding?

A litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot
take contradictory stands in the same case. A party cannot be
permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take
inconsistent shifting stands. The untenability of an inconsistent stand
in the same case was considered in Amar Singh vs. Union of India,
(2011) 7 SCC 69, observing as follows:
“50. This Court wants to make it clear that an action at
law is not a game of chess. A litigant who comes to
Court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must come with
clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take
inconsistent positions.”

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10322 OF 2018
(arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.12073 of 2017)

SUZUKI PARASRAMPURIA
SUITINGS PVT. LTD. Vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF
MAHENDRA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.
(IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS 

NAVIN SINHA, J.
Dated:OCTOBER 08, 2018.

Print Page

What is distinction between contradictory pleas and alternative pleas?

Significantly, the decision rendered by the High Court
rests entirely on the fourth question extracted above. The
High Court has taken the view that while the plaintiff could
indeed seek relief in the alternative, the contentions raised
by him were not in the alternative but contradictory, hence,
could not be allowed to be urged. The High Court found that
the plaintiff’s case that the defendant was a gratuitous
licensee was incompatible with the plea that he was a tenant
and, therefore, could be evicted under the Rent Act. The
High Court observed:
“It is now well settled that a plaintiff may seek
reliefs in the alternative but in fact the pleadings are
mutually opposite, such pleas cannot be raised by

the plaintiff. There is an essential difference
between contradictory pleas and alternative pleas.
When the plaintiff claims relief in the alternative,
the cause of action for the reliefs claimed is the
same. However, when contradictory pleas are
raised, such as in the present case, the foundation
for these contradictory pleas is not the same. When
the plaintiff proceeds on the footing that the
defendant is a gratuitous licensee, he would have to
establish that no rent or consideration was paid for
the premises. Whereas, if he seeks to evict the
defendant under the Rent Act, the plaintiff accepts
that the defendant is in possession of the premises
as a tenant and liable to pay rent. Thus, the issue
whether rent is being paid becomes fundamental to
the decision. Therefore, in my opinion, the pleas
that the defendant is occupying the suit premises
gratuitously is not compatible with the plea that the
defendant is a tenant and therefore can be evicted
under the Rent Act.”
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2014

Praful Manohar Rele V Smt. Krishnabai Narayan
Ghosalkar & Ors.
Dated:January 3, 2014.

Print Page