JUDGMENT
Sat Pal, J.
1. This petition has been directed against the order dated 11th April, 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana. By this order, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking the amendment of the plaint.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the year 1989 petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is a Mahant of Dera/Dharamshala in village Bhairo Munna, Tehsil and District Ludhiana after the death of Mahant Niranjan Dass with regard to the land mentioned in the plaint. In the plaint, the plaintiff has further prayed for possession of the suit land as Manager/Mohatmina being the Mahant of the above mentioned dera. He had even valued his suit clearly understanding that the possession of the suit land was not with him. In the application seeking the amendment, the plaintiffs wanted to substitute title and relief clause of the plaint and by virtue of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff has tried to make out a case that the suit land is in his possession.
3. Shri Amit Rawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by the proposed amendment, the plaintiff is only raising an inconsistent plea which is permissible in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in Savibhri Amma Seethamma v. Aratha Karthy and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 316 and Akshay Restaurant v. Anjanappa, 1995(3) R.R.R. 25.
4. Shri Chadha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is perfectly legal and valid as by the proposed amendment, tike plaintiff wants to make out a totally new case. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the rejoinder has stated that the proposed amendment is within the limitation.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I, however, do not find any merit in this petition. It is true that a party to the suit can raise mutually inconsistent pleadings as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but at the same time the party cannot be permitted to raise a plea which is mutually destructive to the earlier plea. In this case, the plaintiff in the suit filed by him has clearly prayed for possession of the land in dispute whereas by the proposed amendment he wants to make out a case that the land in dispute is in fact in his possession which is totally contrary to the earlier plea. As such, amendment cannot be allowed in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Jaswant Singh, (1997-2)116 P.L.R. 648 (S.C).
6. For the reasons recorded herein above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.