Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)Section 39 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Trojan & Co. Ltd vs Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar on 20 March, 1953
6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Trojan & Co. v. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar- AIR 1953 Sup. Court 235, wherein it was held that decision of a case cannot be based on the ground out side the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for.
Bhagwati Prasad vs Shri Chandramaul on 19 October, 1965
This judgment has been referred to in the case of Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul- AIR 1966 Supreme Court 735, wherein it was held that if a party asks for a relief on a clear and specific ground, and in the issues or at the trial, no other ground is covered, either directly or by necessary implication, it would not be open to the said party to attempt to sustain the same claim on a ground which is entirely new. 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. Taking note of the decision in the case ( AIR 1953 SC 235) the apex court observed that 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 different matter.
Section 38 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Ayyappally Mohammed Haji & Ors vs M. M.Abdulsalam & Ors on 17 January, 2001
8. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended with reference to Ayyappally Mohd. Haji and Ors. v. M.M. Abdulsalam and Ors- (2001) 2 SCC 428, wherein it was held that once an application for amendment of plaint is finally disallowed, no deviation from original pleadings can be permitted. In that case application for amendment of plaint, filed along with appeal against dismissal of suit was ultimately dismissed by Supreme Court and appeal was directed to be heard on the basis of pleadings as they existed. High Court allowed second appeal, permitting plaintiff-respondents to rely on a plan annexed to a sale deed just because the said sale deed had been mentioned in the plaint. In the present case the application for amendment was rejected the learned ARC and landlord challenged that order in appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No. 8 of the memo of appeal before Tribunal relates to the landlady's objections against rejection of amendment application and learned Tribunal in para 8 of the impugned order has taken note thereof and has clearly observed that Unfortunately the application was declined merely on the ground that a new case was being set up whereas the fact remained that it was the subsequent event which was in continuity with the allegation of subletting that was being brought on record. As a matter of fact mere application under section 151 CPC for bringing this event to the notice of the court was sufficient instead of application under O. 6 R. 17 CPC.. The aforesaid observation of learned Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal did not agree with the learned ARC's order, rejecting amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and proceeded to take into consideration subsequent events which were sought to be introduced by the amendment. Obviously, under the circumstances, learned Tribunal must be deemed to have allowed the amendment and then proceeded to examine the material on record in the light of subsequent developments. The order of learned ARC rejecting amendment application could be challenged in appeal and had, thus not attained finality. Therefore, the observations made in 2001 2 SCC page 428 will not apply to the facts of present case. Factum of divorce was admitted by Mohan Manchandani himself in his statement. His plea of joint tenancy and partnership business have also been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant or that they had no opportunity to meet the question of alleged subletting, assignment or parting with possession in favor of Mohan Manchandani. It is settled law that the subsequent events can be/ must be taken note of even at the stage of appeal. The appellant Bhawna Manchandani never appeared in the witness box. Obviously, it indicates that she has no interest whatsoever in the suit premises after her divorce with Mohan Manchandani. The statement of Mohan Manchandani regarding joint tenancy or alleged partnership has been rightly found to be unbelievable. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal was justified in arriving at obvious conclusion that Bhawna Manchandani has parted with possession of the demised premises in favor of her ex-husband Mohan Manchandani.
1