Supreme Court on the Importance of 'Pleadings' in Civil Cases

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I will talk about the case of V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by Lr. & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 896, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the importance of pleadings in civil cases. Pleadings are dealt with in Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

 

After listening to this show, the audience would know about the pertinence of pleadings in civil cases and in general. The fellow advocates listening to the show would realize that before a final draft of a plaint or a written statement is prepared, meticulous inspection of the proposed pleadings must be made by studying the law and the procedure, and by verifying and consulting with the client, so that no mishap occurs at a later stage.

 

GENERAL IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS

 

Clear and succinct pleadings save judicial time and lead to quick disposal of cases, whereas confusing and unclear pleadings have the propensity to prolong a litigation indefinitely. Such a practice must be deprecated. Therefore, let us briefly understand the meaning and the importance of pleadings in Civil Cases.

 

 

PLAIN MEANING

Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, defines “pleading” as “a formal document in which a legal proceeding (esp. a civil lawsuit) sets forth or responds to allegation, claims, denials, or defenses.” Thus, generally speaking, pleadings contain allegations, claims, averments, denials and defenses.

 

ORDER VI OF CPC

 

Now, let us briefly understand the Scheme of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), that deals with pleadings in civil parlance.

 

O. VI R. 1 of CPC states that “pleading shall mean plaint or written statement.” Plaint and Written Statement have been respectively discussed in Order VII and Order VIII of CPC. Basically, the purpose of incorporating pleadings in any case is to provide the particular facts of a case to the opposite party and to the Court, so that they are able to understand the crux of the dispute raised.

 

But what should pleadings contain? O. VI Rule 2 of CPC provides that: -  

 

a. Every pleading shall contain only a statement of material facts on which the party making the pleading is relying upon.

b. Such statement of material facts must be concise.

c. Evidence is not to be stated or incorporated in the pleadings.

d. Pleadings must be structured in a numbered paragraph form.

e. Each allegation should be mentioned in a separate paragraph.

f. Date, sums and numbers are to be expressed in figures as well as in words.

 

Similarly, O.VI R.3 of CPC provides for the proformas that could be followed while making a pleading. It provides for various forms that could be perused by the parties. However, if it is not possible to provide particulars of a fact as provided in the proformas, then the concerned party may incorporate such particulars, as may be necessary, in the pleadings. This has been provided in O.VI R.4.

 

Further, O.VI R.7 of CPC provides that parties cannot raise pleas which are mutually destructive and contradictory to each other.

 

Other provisions of O.VI of CPC provide for the relevant details that ought to be included in pleadings in case of specific circumstances such as a case where there is a condition precedent or malice or denial of contract is alleged, or cases where effect of a document that is relied upon is in question.

 

Thus, we see that the parties are bound to base their contentions before the Court on their pleadings as such pleadings are binding in nature.

 

The facts of the case are not necessary for the purposes of this show and hence, the same are not being discussed. In order to understand the importance of pleadings in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations made by the Court in the present case.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court observed that pleadings are to contain the necessary foundation for raising an appropriate issue and any pleading that denies existence of a fact must be specific. Evasive denials or pleas are prohibited, and such evasive denials may even lead to presumption of an admission in terms of O.VI R.13 of CPC.

 

Secondly, the Court noted that “a relief can only be on the basis of the pleadings alone. Evidence is also to be based on such pleadings. The only exception would be when the parties know each other's case very well and such a pleading is implicit in an issue. Additionally, a court can take judicial note of a fact when it is so apparent on the face of the record.”

 

Thirdly, the Court cited the case of Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735, wherein following important postulates were laid down: -

 

a. Even if a pleading is not specifically made but is covered under an issue by way of implication, then in such circumstances, a party would not be disentitled from relying upon such pleadings if it could be proved by way of evidence.

 

b. The general rule is that relief claimed is to be made on the basis of the pleadings alone. But in cases where substantial matters relating to merits of a case or title to a property are involved, the Court may take a different view, depending upon the circumstances.

 

c. It is cardinal that “relief to be granted can be only with reference to the prayers made in the pleadings.” If the prayer clause of the pleadings is not properly drafted, the concerned party may have to suffer the consequences.

 

And lastly, the Court noted that in cases where there is an absence of a particular pleading, the Appellate Court at a later stage cannot look into such particular fact that is otherwise absent from the pleadings and in case, it does so, cogent reasoning for the same ought to be provided.

 

Those were the observations by the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is often seen that pleadings are made in a callous and lackadaisical manner and later on, when the trial commences, the parties realize the deficiencies in their pleadings. Deficiencies that are of trivial nature could be cured by amending the plaint in terms of O.VI R.17 of CPC. But omitting a material or a particular pleading has its own consequences, and the courts are constrained to draw an adverse inference in absence of material pleadings.