- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prakash Rattan Lal v. Mankey Ram .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner challenged an order dated 7th July, 2007 passed by the trial Court, which allowed the respondent (defendant) to summon two additional witnesses under Order 16 Rule 3 read with Section 151, CPC. These witnesses were to prove that the respondent's land holding exceeded 25 bighas 1 biswa. Initially, in the written statement, the respondent stated that his total land holding was exactly 25 bighas 1 biswa at village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The petitioner had filed a suit and objected to its maintainability on the ground that the Agreement to Sell executed by the respondent related only to part of the land and not the entire holding. However, in the application for summoning additional evidence, the respondent shifted stance, asserting that he needed to prove land holdings in another village, claiming his total holding was beyond 25 bighas 1 biswa, thus rendering the Agreements to Sell void.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a party can lead evidence to prove facts beyond what is stated in its pleadings without amending the pleadings.
- Whether the trial Court erred in allowing the respondent to summon additional witnesses to prove land holdings exceeding what was admitted in the written statement.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh, AIR (1975) 1 SCC 212 | Evidence cannot travel beyond the pleadings. | Supported the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot introduce evidence on new facts not pleaded. |
| Ram Sarup Gupta by LRs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College, AIR (1987) 2 SCC 555 | Reiteration that evidence cannot travel beyond the pleadings. | Reinforced the settled law that evidence must be confined to issues framed on pleadings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized the fundamental purpose of pleadings to bind parties to their stated positions and to prevent surprises during trial. It noted that the respondent’s written statement clearly stated his land holding as 25 bighas 1 biswa. Allowing evidence to prove a larger holding without amending pleadings would defeat the purpose and sanctity of pleadings, as well as procedural fairness. The Court referred to settled Supreme Court precedents establishing that evidence must be confined to the pleadings. Consequently, the trial Court erred in permitting the respondent to summon additional witnesses to prove facts beyond the pleadings without proper amendment. The Court thus set aside the impugned order.
Holding and Implications
Petition allowed.
The Court’s decision directly nullifies the trial Court’s order permitting additional evidence beyond the pleadings. The respondent is barred from proving facts not pleaded unless the pleadings are amended. No new precedent was established; the ruling reaffirms established principles regarding the scope of evidence and the importance of pleadings in civil procedure.
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.— By this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 7th July, 2007 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the trial Court allowed an application under Order 16 Rule 3 read with Section 151, CPC made by the defendant (respondent herein) and allowed the respondent to summon two more witnesses to prove land holding of the respondent being in excess of 25 bighas 1 biswa of the land.
2. It is submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent, in the written statement, has taken specific stand that his total land holding was 25 bighas 1 biswa at village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. An objection was taken about the maintainability of the suit filed by the petitioner (plaintiff before the trial Court) on the ground that since the respondent had executed Agreement to Sell only in respect of the part of the land and not in respect of its entire holding, namely, 25 bigha 1 biswa, the Agreement was void and not maintainable. However, in the application made before the trial Court for summoning additional evidence, the respondent took the stand that he has to prove his holding in another village showing that his holding was beyond 25 bigha 1 biswa and although he had executed various Agreements to Sell in respect of entire land of 25 bigha 1 biswa in favour of the petitioner but still these Agreements to Sell were void because his holding was more than 25 bigha 1 biswa.
3. This was not the stand of the defendant in the written statement. A perusal of the written statement shows that the defendant had specifically stated that his total holding was 25 bigha 1 biswa. The defendant during evidence cannot be allowed to show that his holding was much beyond 25 bigha 1 biswa.
4. The sole purpose of pleadings is to bind the parties to a stand. When the plaintiff makes certain allegations, the defendant is supposed to disclose his defence to each and every allegation specifically and state true facts to the Court and once the facts are stated by both the parties, the Court has to frame issues and ask the parties to lead evidence. It is settled law that the parties can lead evidence limited to their pleadings and parties while leading evidence cannot travel beyond pleadings. If the parties are allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings then the sacrosancy of pleadings comes to an end and the entire purpose of filing pleadings also stand defeated. The other purpose behind this is that no party can be taken by surprise and new facts cannot be brought through evidence which have not been stated by the defendant in the written statement. The law provides a procedure for amendment of the pleadings and if there are any new facts which the party wanted to bring on record, the party can amend pleadings, but without amendment of pleadings, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings.
5. I am supported in this view by judgments of Supreme Court in (1975) 1 SCC 212 : AIR (1975) 1 SCC 212; Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh, wherein the Supreme Court has held that evidence adduced cannot travel beyond the pleadings. In AIR (1987) 2 SCC 555; Ram Sarup Gupta by LRs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College, the Supreme Court again reiterated that the evidence cannot travel beyond the pleadings.
6. I, therefore, consider that the trial Court could not have allowed the application to prove something which was not recorded in the pleadings. The petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court is hereby set aside.
Petition allowed.
Alert