Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 8 8 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No.
In paragraph 26 of the proposed amendment it was alleged by the defendants that being a mercantile agent and an agent of the defendants in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff has numberlocus standi to file the suit.
Two paragraphs of the written statement companytained addi tional pleas.
The defendants further denied the allegation of the plaintiff that the plaintiff placed orders with the defendants in the plaintiffs capacity as a purchaser.
The proposed amendment in para 25 was that by virtue of the agreement the plaintiff was appointed a mercantile agent and the plaintiff acted in that capacity in placing orders on the defendants.
The defendants also alleged that the plaintiff throughout acted as an agent of the defendants.
The defendants filed written statement.
190 of.1976.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants are defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in suit out of which this appeal arises.
The plaintiffs suit is for a decree for Rs.
P. Malhotra, N.S. Das Bahl, Y.P. Chadha and Sat Pal, for the respondent.
The defendants appellants approximately 3 years after the filing of the written statement made an application for amendment of the written statement.
1004/74.
C. Manchanda and M.L. Jain, for the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal is by Special Leave from the judgment dated 8 August, 1975 of the High Court of Allaha bad.
1,30,000/ on the cause of action as laid in the plaint.
The suit was instituted sometime in the month of May, 1971.
The proposed amendments were for deletion of paragraphs 25 and 26 and for substitu tion of two new paragraph 25 and 26.
Paragraph 25 states that the agreement dated 7 April, 1967 is appli cable to the transactions in which the plaintiff works as stockist cumdistributor of the defendants.
