Court Cannot pass order or grant relief which is not in prayer clause in suit.

 

In State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, in para-55, the Apex Court has held as under:

“RELIEF NOT CLAIMED – CANNOT BE GRANTED:

 Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.” Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide : Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho, (1898) 25 Ind. App. 195; M/s. Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235; Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 3165; and State of Maharashtra v.Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 518.) “

 

 In The National Textile Corporation Ltd. vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others 2011 (10) Scale 28, the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 7 to 13 has held as under:” 7.

Pleadings and particulars are necessary to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Therefore, the pleadings are more of help to the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”.A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide: M/s. Trojan & Co. v. RM N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235; State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.,AIR 7 2010 SC 1299; and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, AIR 2011 SC 1127).

 

. In Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1242, this Court held as under:

“…… in the absence of pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered……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.”

Similar view has been reiterated in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1103.

 

 In Kashi Nath (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Jaganath, (2003) 8 SCC 740, this Court held that “where the evidence is not in line of the pleadings and is at variance with it, the said evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon.

Same remain the object for framing the issues under Order XIV CPC and the court should not decide a suit on a matter/point on which no issue has been framed. (Vide: Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 693; and Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra).

 

 In Syed and Company & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 422, this Court held as under:

“Without specific pleadings in that regard, evidence could not be led in since it is settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked unless there is a pleading. Therefore, without amendment of the pleadings merely trying to lead evidence is not permissible.”

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Gujarat High Court

Motiben vs State on 13 March, 2012

Author: V. M. Desai,

LPA/10/2000    9/ 9   JUDGMENT

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

LETTERS

PATENT APPEAL No. 10 of 2000

 

SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2498 of 1999

 

 

With LETTERS

PATENT APPEAL No. 11 of 2000

IN

 

SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2498 of 1999

 

 

 

 

For

Approval and Signature:

 

 

 

 

 

HONOURABLE

MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI

HONOURABLE

MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI

 

====================================

 

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment

 

To be referred to the Reporter or not

 

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

 

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to th interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder

 

Whether   it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

 

====================================

 

MOTIBEN

JADAVBHAI MALANI EDUCATION & CHARITABLE TRUST & 2 –

Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 – Respondent(s)

====================================

 

Appearance :

MR

ANSHIN H DESAI for Appellants.

Mr.N.J.Shah, Assistant GOVERNMENT

PLEADER for Respondent no.1.

MR AD OZA for Respondent no.2.

NOTICE

SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3 – 5,7 – 8.

MR BS PATEL for Respondent

HONOURABLE

MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and

 

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI

 

 

Date

: 13/03/2012

ORAL

JUDGMENT

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

  1. We have heard Mr.Anshin Desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.N.J.Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1, Mr.Hemang Rawal holding the brief of Mr.A.D.Oza, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr.Chirag Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6. Respondent nos.,3,4,5,7,8 and 9 have been served, but they have not put in any appearance.
  2. Respondent no.6 filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2498 of 1988 claiming that the petitioner was entitled for grant-in-aid from the State Government, as their institution was similarly situated and fulfilled all the criteria as was fulfilled by the respondent institutions. The respondent institutions were arrayed as respondents only with the purpose to demonstrate that the petitioner institution was similarly situated and was also entitled for grant-in-aid in the same manner as the respondent institutions were granted.
  3. In the writ petition filed by the respondent no.6, the following reliefs were claimed.

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to give recognition with grant facilities to the petitioner schools with retrospective effect as given to the other schools;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of this writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to give recognition with grant facilities to the petitioners schools w.e.f.June, 1998, immediately;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of this writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation of the decision taken in the meeting held on 27.3.99 to give recognition with grant facilities to the aforesaid 5 schools of Rajkot district, till the petitioner schools are given recognition.

(D) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of this writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondents from proceeding further with regard to their advertisement dated 20.3.1999 for giving recognition w.e.f.June,1999.

(E) Be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

  1. Thus, in the writ petition filed by respondent no.6, no relief for cancelling grant-in-aid of respondent institution was claimed. This has been also observed by the learned Single Judge in para-16 of the judgment. But the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, has directed that the grant-in-aid granted to respondent nos.3,5 and 7 be cancelled. The appellants-original respondent nos.3,5 and have filed these Appeals. It is not disputed before us by either of the parties that the original petitioner as well as original respondents are all receiving grant-in-aid. Respondent no.6 is receiving grant-in-aid in pursuance of the direction given by the learned Single Judge. So far as the case of the appellants is concerned, in the writ petition, there was no relief for cancelling their grant was claimed by respondent no.6. In Manoharlal (Dead) by LRs vs.Ugrasen (Dead) by LRs and others, (2010) 11 SCC 557, the Apex Court in para 34 has held as under:

“34. In view of the above, law on the issue can be summarised that the court cannot grant a relief which has not been specifically prayed by the parties. …..”

  1. In Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand and others(2010) 10 SCC 693, in para 32, the Apex Court has held as under:

“32.

Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in M.S.Bindra and Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India, it has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that adverse entries had not been made in a bona fide manner and as per the requirement prescribed by circulars etc. Therefore, the consequential order of compulsory retirement is illegal. There is no factual foundation on the basis of which such an assertion can be examined, nor is there a challenge in the writ petition to the said adverse entries. The petitioner sought quashing of order of compulsory retirement dated 20.5.2003 and not quashing of the adverse entries. Relief not specifically sought cannot be granted by the Court. Therefore, there is no occasion for us to probe the issue further.”

  1. In Rajasthan Pradesh Vidya Samiti, Sardarsahar and another vs Union of India and others (2010) 12 SCC 609, the Apex Court has held in para-12 as under:

“15. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, this Court has observed as under:-

“In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.”

  1. Similar view has been reiterated in M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt Chitra Kumari etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors. , AIR 2001 SC 1298.
  2. In M/s.

Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684, this Court observed as under:-

“The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law.”

  1. Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti & Anr.Vs. Prakash N. Rudrakar & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18; Devasahayam (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. P. Savithramma & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 653; and Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252.”
  2. In State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty(2011) 3 SCC 436, in para-55, the Apex Court has held as under:

“RELIEF NOT CLAIMED – CANNOT BE GRANTED:

  1. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.” Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide : Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho, (1898) 25 Ind. App. 195; M/s. Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235; Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 3165; and State of Maharashtra v.Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 518.) “
  2. In The National Textile Corporation Ltd. vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others2011 (10) Scale 28, the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 7 to 13 has held as under:

” 7.

Pleadings and particulars are necessary to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Therefore, the pleadings are more of help to the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”.A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide: M/s. Trojan & Co. v. RM N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235; State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.,AIR 7 2010 SC 1299; and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, AIR 2011 SC 1127).

  1. In Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1242, this Court held as under:

“…… in the absence of pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered……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.”

Similar view has been reiterated in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1103.

  1. In Kashi Nath (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Jaganath, (2003) 8 SCC 740, this Court held that “where the evidence is not in line of the pleadings and is at variance with it, the said evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon.

Same remain the object for framing the issues under Order XIV CPC and the court should not decide a suit on a matter/point on which no issue has been framed. (Vide: Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 693; and Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra).

  1. In Syed and Company & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 422, this Court held as under:

“Without specific pleadings in that regard, evidence could not be led in since it is settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked unless there is a pleading. Therefore, without amendment of the pleadings merely trying to lead evidence is not permissible.”

  1. In Chinta Lingam & Ors. v. The Govt. of India & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 474, this Court held that unless factual foundation has been laid in the pleadings no argument is permissible to be raised on that particular point.
  2. In J.

Jermons v. Aliammal & Ors, (1999) 7 SCC 382, while dealing with a similar issue, this Court held as under:

“……

there is a fundamental difference between a case of raising additional grounds based on the pleadings and the material available on record and a case of taking a new plea not borne out of the pleadings. In the former case no amendment of pleading is required, whereas in the latter it is necessary to amend th pleadings…The respondents cannot be permitted to make out a new case by seeking permission to raise additional grounds in revision.”

  1. In view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that a party has to take proper pleadings and prove the same by adducing sufficient evidence. No evidence can be permitted to be adduced on a issue unless factual foundation has been laid down in respect of the same.
  2. It is well settled by the Apex Court that in absence of any pleading or specific prayer, no direction could have been issued by the learned Single Judge cancelling grant-in-aid of the appellant as institutions. As a matter of fact, there was no pleading or prayer made in the writ petition by the respondent no.6 for cancelling grant-in-aid of respondent nos.3,5 and 7. In absence of any pleading relief, in our opinion, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, the order of the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to the present appellants cannot be maintained and deserves to be set aside. So far as grant-in-aid granted by the learned Single Judge to the respondent no.6 is concerned, it is affirmed.
  3. In the result, these appeals succeed and are partly allowed. The grant-in-aid cancelled by the learned Single Judge with regard to the appellant institutions is set aside. However, grant-in-aid granted by the learned Single Judge to the respondent no.6 is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

(V.M.SAHAI,J) (A.J.DESAI,J)