Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.34 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kalu Ram Kole vs State Of Chhattisgarh 9 Mcrc/9466/2018 ... on 4 December, 2018
Observations of Kalu Ram's case (Supra) apply on all force to
the facts of this case. In the case in hand also despite receipt of
notice respondent did not care to reply nor refuted the averments of
demand of the amount on the basis of the invoices/bills in question.
But the learned Trial Court failed to draw inference against the
respondent."
Nedunuri Kameswaramma vs Sampati Subba Rao on 17 April, 1962
14. The High Court has ignored the aforesaid principles relating
to the object and necessity of pleadings. Even though right of
easement was not pleaded or claimed by the plaintiffs, and even
though parties were at issue only in regard to title and possession, it
made out for the first time in second appeal, a case of easement and
granted relief based on an easementary right. For this purpose, it
relied upon the following observations of this Court in Nedunuri
Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao [AIR 1963 SC 884] : (AIR p.
886, para 6)
"6. ... No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was
framed, could have been more elaborate; but since the parties
went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence
not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those
of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue
was fatal to the case, or that there was that mistrial which
vitiates proceedings. We are, therefore, of opinion that the suit
could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also that
there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led
in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion."
But the said observations were made in the context of absence of an
issue, and not absence of pleadings.
Bhagwati Prasad vs Shri Chandramaul on 19 October, 1965
15. The relevant principle relating to circumstances in which the
deficiency in, or absence of, pleadings could be ignored, was stated
by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagwati Prasad v.
Chandramaul [AIR 1966 SC 735] : (AIR p. 738, para 10)
"10. ... If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by
an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea
was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not
expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle
a party from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RFA 92/2020 Page 30 of 35
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:01.12.2023
16:38:27
evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be
founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the
substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit
are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely, in the issues,
and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a
particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would
be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every
case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an
objection is : did the parties know that the matter in question
was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If
it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in
issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead
evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different
matter. To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of
which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no
opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of
prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do
injustice to another."
Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors on 8 April, 1987
16. The principle was reiterated by this Court in Ram Sarup Gupta
v. Bishun Narain Inter College [(1987) 2 SCC 555 : AIR 1987 SC
1242] : (SCC pp. 562-63, para 6)
"6. ... It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence,
if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also
equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel
beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts
should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by
it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary
party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair
trial it is imperative that the party should settle the essential
material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise.
The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction; no
pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-
splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in
words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance
with strict interpretation of law. In such a case it is the duty of
the court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to
determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue
emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should
be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is
raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of the
pleadings; instead the court must find out whether in substance
the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to
trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings
parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues
Signature Not Verified
by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a
Digitally Signed RFA 92/2020 Page 31 of 35
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:01.12.2023
16:38:27
party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal."
Payal Vision Ltd vs Radhika Choudhary on 20 September, 2012
27. The case of the Plaintiff is, therefore, to be tested on the
touchstone of the three parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in
Payal Vision Limited (supra). Insofar as two parameters, i.e. landlord-
tenant relationship and notice of termination are concerned, these need
not detain this Court as it is admitted by the Defendant that the
Plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the suit premises and she was
inducted as a tenant. Receipt of legal notice on 07.05.2016 terminating
the tenancy and seeking possession as well as arrears of rent etc. is
also admitted. In fact, this clearly finds mention in paragraph 22 of the
impugned judgment, which is extracted hereunder for ready
reference:-