Grant of Relief Not Prayed For: Principles and Precedents in Indian Law

Introduction

The edifice of civil adjudication in India, as in most common law jurisdictions, rests upon the foundational principle of party autonomy in defining the contours of the dispute. Pleadings, comprising the plaint and the written statement, serve as the cornerstone, delineating the factual matrix, the legal claims, and the specific reliefs sought by the parties. A cardinal rule emanating from this framework is that a court of law ordinarily cannot grant a relief that has not been specifically prayed for by the plaintiff. This principle is rooted in notions of procedural fairness, ensuring that the defendant has adequate notice of the claims they are to meet and an opportunity to present a defence against such claims. To grant an unpleaded relief would be to venture beyond the lis presented by the parties, potentially causing surprise and prejudice.

However, the administration of justice is not merely a mechanical application of procedural rules. The courts are also repositories of inherent power and are guided by the overarching objective of rendering substantial justice. Consequently, the seemingly rigid rule against granting unpleaded reliefs is not without its exceptions and nuances. This article undertakes a scholarly analysis of the principles governing the grant of relief not prayed for under Indian law, examining the statutory framework, landmark judicial pronouncements, and the delicate balance courts strike between procedural propriety and the imperative of justice.

The Foundational Principle: Reliefs Must Be Pleaded

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs the procedure in civil courts in India, underscores the importance of specific prayers. Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC mandates that "Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement."

The Supreme Court of India has consistently reinforced the doctrine that parties are bound by their pleadings and that courts cannot travel beyond them to grant reliefs not sought. In Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal And Another[1], the Apex Court meticulously expounded on this principle. It held that a court cannot make out a case for a party that is not pleaded and for which no issue has been framed. The Court emphasized that pleadings and issues serve to clearly define the matters in dispute, ensuring both parties are aware of the case against them and can prepare accordingly. Granting reliefs not expressly requested undermines the adversarial system and the right to a fair trial. The Court observed:

"The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial... The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue."

This stance was reiterated in Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P Joshi[7], an election petition case, where the Supreme Court stressed that proceedings in election petitions must strictly adhere to pleadings and framed issues. Similarly, in Union Of India v. Ibrahim Uddin And Another[8], it was held that relief based on grounds outside pleadings is impermissible, underscoring that all material facts and evidence should be adequately pleaded at the outset.

The principle that a party cannot be granted a relief which is not claimed was also affirmed in Om Prakash And Others v. Ram Kumar And Others[3], where the Court noted that a plaintiff cannot be given any relief contrary to his case on the admission of the defendant if it is going to cause prejudice and injustice to the latter. This view finds resonance in earlier decisions like Messrs. Trojan & Company v. Rm. N.N Nagappa Chettiar (cited in Anu Jain v. Utc Softech Pvt. Ltd.[9]), which established that a decision cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings. The Supreme Court in Bharat Amratlal Kothari And Another v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi And Others[17] disapproved of the High Court granting relief not prayed for in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that while the court has wide discretion, it cannot ignore the norms and principles governing the grant of relief. The RERA Authority in Anu Jain v. Utc Softech Pvt. Ltd.[9], citing Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs., also emphasized that a court cannot grant relief which has not been specifically prayed for by the parties.

Exceptions and Nuances to the Rule

While the general rule is firmly established, Indian jurisprudence recognizes certain exceptions and situations where courts may grant reliefs not explicitly prayed for, often to ensure that substantive justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities.

General or Other Relief (Order VII Rule 7 CPC)

The latter part of Order VII Rule 7 CPC itself provides a window: "...it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for." This provision empowers the court to grant such other relief as is consistent with the case made out by the plaintiff and supported by the evidence on record, provided it does not take the defendant by surprise or cause prejudice.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Amar Kaur And Another[10] interpreted this, holding that so long as the "other relief" is not inconsistent with the original relief asked for, is based on the same cause of action, and is not different from it, it is generally granted even when not asked for. Similarly, the Orissa High Court in Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. And Others[11] observed that it is open to the Court to give such consequential reliefs as it may think fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, within the ambit of the reliefs broadly prayed for.

Moulding of Reliefs

Courts possess the inherent power to mould reliefs to suit the changed circumstances or to render complete justice between the parties. This power, however, is generally exercised within the framework of the case pleaded. In DHANDAPANI KOUNDER v. SENTHILKUMAR[12], the Madras High Court, citing the Supreme Court, noted that "in an action where a party has prayed for a larger relief it is always open to the court to grant him any smaller relief that he may be found to be entitled in law and thereby render substantial justice. The Court can undoubtedly take note of changed circumstances and suitably mould the relief to be granted to the party concerned in order to mete out justice in the case."

The Rajasthan High Court in SURESH CHAND CHOUDHARY v. STATE[13], referencing B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, acknowledged the High Court's power to mould relief to do complete justice, even in the absence of a provision parallel to Article 142 of the Constitution. However, the power to mould relief must be exercised judiciously. As cautioned in Anu Jain v. Utc Softech Pvt. Ltd.[9], moulding relief should not translate into granting orders contrary to the prayer of the allottee or beyond the scope of pleadings, especially if it leads to miscarriage of justice.

Reliefs Based on Admitted Facts or Evidence Led by Parties

An important exception arises when, despite the absence of a specific pleading or issue, parties have understood the case, led evidence, and argued the matter. The Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar[1] itself acknowledged this by referring to precedents like Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao (where absence of a specific issue was not fatal if parties led comprehensive evidence) and Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul[6].

In Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul[6], the Supreme Court held that 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 evidence. In that case, ejectment was granted on the basis of a license, even though the primary claim was tenancy, because the pleadings and evidence substantially covered the issue of permissive possession.

Inherent Powers of the Court (Section 151 CPC)

While Section 151 CPC preserves the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court, this power is generally invoked for procedural justice and not to grant substantive reliefs wholly outside the pleadings, especially if it prejudices the other side. The Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (cited in Remisiama And Ors. v. Dr. Ainghinglova Hrahsel[14]) affirmed that courts can issue injunctions in cases not falling within Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 by exercising inherent powers, but this is typically to maintain the status quo or prevent injustice pending adjudication, rather than granting a final, unpleaded substantive relief.

The Imperative of Pleadings

The exceptions notwithstanding, the judiciary consistently underscores the paramount importance of pleadings. As observed in Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College (cited in Bachhaj Nahar[1]), parties must plead all essential material facts to prevent surprise during trial. The Calcutta High Court in Jamaluddin Mollah v. Sk Mohammad Aslam[15], while discussing Order VII Rule 1 and Rule 11 CPC, noted the significance of Order VII Rule 7 regarding specific statement of relief, implying that defects in this regard might be curable but cannot be ignored to the extent of granting wholly new reliefs.

The failure to plead a cause of action for a specific relief can be fatal, as indicated in Tata Tea Ltd. And Ors. v. B.V.P Rao[19], where the court considered if the plaint disclosed a cause of action to grant the relief prayed for.

Specific Contexts and Judicial Approaches

Service Matters and "Complete Justice"

In service jurisprudence, courts sometimes exercise broader powers to do "complete justice." In State Of Punjab And Others v. Bakshish Singh[2], the Supreme Court, in the context of a dismissal of a police constable, set aside the appellate court's remand order and upheld the trial court's decree, stating it was exercising its power of doing complete justice between the parties. While not strictly about granting an unpleaded relief, it reflects a judicial inclination towards finality and substantive justice.

Constitutional Rights and Public Interest

While the principles of pleadings apply to writ petitions as well (Bharat Amratlal Kothari[17]), the expansive interpretation of fundamental rights, as seen in cases like Olga Tellis And Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation And Others[4] (establishing right to livelihood under Article 21), might create an environment where courts are more proactive. However, this typically pertains to the interpretation of rights or the fashioning of remedies for established violations, rather than granting a specific relief entirely unasked for without any basis in the petition.

Declaratory and Consequential Reliefs

The necessity of praying for appropriate consequential reliefs is highlighted by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As seen in Union Of India v. Ibrahim Uddin[8], a suit for a mere declaration of title without seeking the consequential relief of possession (if the plaintiff is out of possession) may be held non-maintainable. This underscores the importance of a comprehensive prayer clause.

Statutory Exceptions: Maintenance under CrPC

Certain statutes may themselves provide discretion to the court that can lead to grant of relief in a manner not explicitly detailed in the prayer. For instance, under Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, maintenance can be ordered from the date of the order or, if so ordered, from the date of the application. In Shivkumar @ Chhote v. Smt. Usha[22], the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the grant of maintenance from the date of application even if not specifically prayed for, noting the discretionary power vested in the court by the statute. This was distinguished from civil suits where granting an unpleaded relief was held impermissible in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari.

Judgment on Admissions (Order XII Rule 6 CPC)

Order XII Rule 6 CPC allows courts to pass a judgment based on admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise. Cases like Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank Of India And Others[20] and Payal Vision Limited v. Radhika Choudhary[21] elaborate on this. If admissions by the defendant are clear and unequivocal and entitle the plaintiff to a certain relief that flows from the pleaded case, the court may grant it, even if the prayer clause could have been more precise. This is not strictly granting an "unpleaded" relief but rather a relief that is a direct consequence of admitted pleaded facts.

Consequences of Granting Unpleaded Reliefs

Granting a relief not prayed for, outside the recognized exceptions, can lead to serious consequences. It amounts to a denial of natural justice, as the opposing party is deprived of the opportunity to contest that specific relief. It can lead to a miscarriage of justice, as the court would be adjudicating on a matter not properly brought before it. This was a key concern in Bachhaj Nahar[1] and echoed in Anu Jain[9], where it was stated that if a court considers and grants such a relief, "it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief."

Conclusion

The principle that a court cannot grant a relief not prayed for is a cornerstone of procedural fairness and the adversarial system in Indian civil jurisprudence. It ensures that litigation is confined to the issues raised by the parties, preventing surprise and ensuring a fair opportunity for defence. While Order VII Rule 7 CPC and inherent judicial powers allow for some flexibility—such as granting general or other relief, moulding reliefs, or acting upon issues substantially tried by parties—these exceptions are narrowly construed and must not cause prejudice or injustice.

The onus remains heavily on litigants and their counsel to draft pleadings with precision and foresight, clearly articulating all claims and reliefs sought, whether primary or alternative. The judiciary, while striving to render substantive justice, is generally constrained by the framework of the case presented by the parties. The consistent line of authority, from Bachhaj Nahar to more recent pronouncements, reaffirms that adherence to pleadings is not a mere technicality but a fundamental tenet of a fair and orderly judicial process. Any deviation must be justified by compelling reasons rooted in established legal principles, ensuring that the pursuit of justice does not inadvertently lead to its denial for one of the parties.

Footnotes

1. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal And Another (2008) 17 SCC 491.
2. State Of Punjab And Others v. Bakshish Singh (1998) 8 SCC 222.
3. Om Prakash And Others v. Ram Kumar And Others (1991) 1 SCC 441.
4. Olga Tellis And Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation And Others (1985) 3 SCC 545.
5. Kailash Chand Sumerchand Jain v. State Of M.P, 1997 SCC OnLine MP 316. (General reference to procedural aspects, though not directly on unpleaded relief).
6. Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735.
7. Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786.
8. Union Of India v. Ibrahim Uddin And Another (2012) 8 SCC 148.
9. Anu Jain v. Utc Softech Pvt. Ltd., 2022 RERA (Specific reference to Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. and Messrs. Trojan & Company v. Rm. N.N Nagappa Chettiar).
10. Bhagwan Singh v. Amar Kaur And Another, AIR 1961 P&H 144 (as per summary, actual citation may vary).
11. Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. And Others, AIR 1962 Ori 22 (as per summary, actual citation may vary).
12. DHANDAPANI KOUNDER v. SENTHILKUMAR, 2022 (Madras High Court).
13. SURESH CHAND CHOUDHARY v. STATE, 2017 (Rajasthan High Court).
14. Remisiama And Ors. v. Dr. Ainghinglova Hrahsel, 2008 (Gauhati High Court).
15. Jamaluddin Mollah v. Sk Mohammad Aslam, 2018 (Calcutta High Court).
16. Renuka Bhati (Smt.) & Ors. v. His Highness Maharawal Brijraj Singh & Anr., 2010 (Rajasthan High Court). (Not directly on unpleaded final relief, but on interim relief).
17. Bharat Amratlal Kothari And Another v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi And Others (2010) 1 SCC 234.
18. M/S. Inder Puri General Store And Others v. Union Of India And Another, 1991 SCC OnLine J&K 4.
19. Tata Tea Ltd. And Ors. v. B.V.P Rao, Ias Opposite Party, 2006 SCC OnLine Gau 510.
20. Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank Of India And Others (2000) 7 SCC 120.
21. Payal Vision Limited v. Radhika Choudhary (2012) 11 SCC 405.
22. Shivkumar @ Chhote v. Smt. Usha, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) (Two references provided, likely same case or related).
23. (See footnote 22)
24. AKELLA LALITHA v. KONDA HANUMANTHA RAO, 2022 (Supreme Court Of India), citing Bharat Amratlal Kothari.