Inconsistent pleadings and approbation-reprobation barred relief after the appellant tried to change its case mid-proceeding.

A party cannot resile from an earlier pleaded case in the same proceeding and then seek relief on a contradictory basis. The appellant had initially sought substitution as a secured creditor on the strength of an assignment, with Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act invoked only in support of that position. When that claim failed, it attempted to recast the matter as a mere assignment of an actionable claim. The SC held that such inconsistent pleadings and arguments were impermissible, and no error was shown in rejecting substitution and the recall or review request.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could be permitted to resile from its earlier stand and contend that it had not sought substitution as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, and whether the rejection of recall/review of the earlier order suffered from any error warranting interference.

Analysis: The pleadings and the earlier order showed that the appellant had consciously sought substitution in place of IFCI as a secured creditor on the strength of the assignment and had also invoked Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act only as support for that claim. The record of the proceedings and the review order confirmed that the original case was argued on that basis. After failure of that claim, the appellant attempted to take a contradictory stand in the same proceedings by recasting the case as one merely for assignment of an actionable claim. A litigant cannot approbate and reprobate or take mutually inconsistent positions in the same case.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to shift its stand, and no ground was made out to interfere with the orders rejecting substitution and recall/review.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected after the Court held that the appellant's inconsistent pleadings and arguments disentitled it to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot be permitted to take contradictory positions in the same proceeding in order to obtain relief after its earlier stand has failed.

---