List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a division bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal has held that the evidence produced before the court cannot surpass the pleadings of the case.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the case of Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRs. v. V. Kumar Vamanrao.

What was the Background of Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRs. v. V. Kumar Vamanrao Case?

• Family Tree of Parties:

• Initial Case:
  • The case involved a dispute among family members over property rights.
  • Plaintiffs sued defendant No. 1, along with other defendants including defendant No. 5, defendant No. 2, and sister of defendant No. 1.
  • Defendant No.6 was a proposed purchaser of a part of the land.
  • While Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (defendant No.7) was brought into the suit later.
  • The plaintiffs claimed a 5/9^th share in the properties and sought mesne profits.
• Division of Shares by the Courts:
  • The Trial Court granted them a 1/6^th share in certain properties but dismissed claims related to other properties.
  • Both plaintiffs and defendants appealed to the High Court, which revised the shares and property entitlements.
• Sale of Property by Defendant No. 7:
  • The case revolves around the disputed ownership and partition of property, specifically Regular Survey No. 106/2.
    • Defendant No. 7 sold the property to defendant No. 9 in 2001 to protect his interests, despite the sale being deemed invalid by the HC.
  • Defendant No. 7 challenged the sale, while defendant No. 9 did not appeal.
  • The HC allowed defendant No. 7 to argue based on pleadings and evidence, stating the Trial Court could adjust relief as per law in a partition suit.
  • The plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were granted equal shares of Schedule ‘A’ properties, with specific shares allotted for other properties based on an oral partition that took place in 1965.
• 1965 Partition between Parties:
  • The High Court relied on a 1965 partition, contested by the defendants, particularly defendant No. 1.
  • The Trial Court rejected an amendment regarding the 1965 partition, which was upheld.
  • Defendant No. 7 claimed ownership based on a 1984 partition, supported by a compromise decree.
    • Defendant No. 1's stance shifted, aligning with the plaintiffs, leading to complexity in the case.
  • Defendant No. 1's failure to challenge the 2001 sale suggested the property belonged to defendant No. 7 since the 1984 partition.
• Amendment in Pleadings to Add 1965 Partition:
  • The initial suit, which was filed in 1999, and defendant No.1's written statement did not assert a partition in 1965 either.
  • Plaintiffs later attempted to amend the plaint to include pleadings about the 1965 partition, but the Trial Court rejected the application in 2006, which was not challenged further and thus became final.
  • Later, defendant No. 7 raised a specific plea about the 1984 partition, supported by a decree from a Civil Court in 1995, which recognized the partition of 1984.
  • However, the High Court still found that the properties belonged to defendant no. 1 and hence the sale by defendant no. 7 was bad in law.
• Appeal to Supreme Court:
  • Defendant No. 7 appealed to the Supreme Court but passed away during proceedings.
  • The focus of the appeals to the Supreme Court primarily concerns a sale of specific properties to defendant No.9 by defendant No.7 which was later held bad by the HC.

What were the Observations of Court?

• Judgement:
  • The sale by defendant No. 7 to defendant No. 9 did not violate any of the Trial Court’s orders, as defendant No. 7 was not party to the initial suit until 2001.
    • No extension of the interim order was made regarding the newly impleaded defendant, so no wilful violation occurred.
  • The High Court's judgment heavily relied on the oral partition of 1965, wherein Schedule ‘A’ properties were supposedly allocated solely to defendant No.1.
    • However, it was not even the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that such a partition occurred in 1965.
  • Consequently, appeals were allowed, setting aside High Court findings on sale deed.
    • The sale deed was upheld in favor of defendant No. 9.
• Reasoning:
  • According to legal principle, evidence cannot surpass what is pleaded.
  • In this case, since the plaintiffs' attempt to amend their pleadings regarding the 1965 partition was rejected, evidence related to it cannot be considered by the court.
  • The SC said that there is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings.

What is the Concept of Pleadings under CPC?

• Definition:
  • Pleadings are formal written statements filed by the parties to a lawsuit, outlining their respective claims, defences, and responses to each other's claims.
  • Rule 1 of Order VI states that, “Pleading” shall mean plaint or written statement.
• Purpose:
  • Pleadings serve as the case's foundation, defining the scope and issues the court will resolve.
• Parties Involved:
  • Plaintiffs: Those who initiate the lawsuit by instituting a plaint.
  • Defendants: Those against whom the plaint is filed, responding to the allegations made by the plaintiffs.
• Content of Pleadings
  • Rule 3 of Order VI states that every pleading shall contain, and only, a concise statement.
  • Statement must relate to material facts which the party pleading relies on for his claim or defence.
  • But it must not contain the evidence by which they are to be proved.
  • Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively.
  • Each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph.
  • Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures and words.
• Major Rules of Order VI:
  • This order deals with pleadings generally. It outlines the rules regarding the form and content of pleadings, including the requirements for particulars, verification, and amendments.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Thangam and Anr. v. Navamani Ammal, has held that the failure on the part of the defendant to give a specific para-wise reply in the written statement would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant.

What was the Background of Thangam and Anr. v. Navamani Ammal Case?

• In this case, the testator of the Will, Palaniandi Udayar, was the husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellant no. 2.
• The Will was executed in favour of Navamani Amma (Plaintiff), who as per the narration in the Will is said to be daughter of the brother of the testator.
• The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction before the Trial Court against the appellant/defendant.
• A written statement filed by the appellants/defendant, made no specific denial to the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff and neither parawise reply was given by the appellants/defendant to the allegations levied in the plaint.
• The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
• In appeal by the appellants, judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court.
• In the second appeal filed by the respondent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored by the High Court.
• Thereafter, the appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench Comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal observed that Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient.
  • Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 of CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved.
  • This is an exception to the general rule. The general rule is that the facts admitted are not required to be proved.
• It was further held that the written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance.
  • If his denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary.
• It was also held that Rule 5 of Order VIII provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Written Statement:

• A written statement ordinarily means a reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiff. It is the pleading of the defendant.
• Order VIII of CPC contains provisions in relation to the written statement.

Rule 3 of Order VIII of CPC:

• This rule deals with the denial to be specific.
• It states that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.

Rule 5 of Order VIII of CPC:

• This rule deals with specific denial. It states that -

(1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.

Provided further that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the manner provided under Rule 3A of this Order, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person with disability.

(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved.

(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader.

(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of M/S Genius Ortho Industries v. Union of India and Ors., has held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands.

What was the Background of M/S Genius Ortho Industries v. Union of India and Ors. Case?

• In this case, a writ petition has been filed before the High Court of Allahabad, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated February 27, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner, C.G.S.T., Meerut cancelling its GST registration.
• The ground for cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner was that upon physical verification, it was found by the authorities that no business activity was being carried out at the said premises.
• Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there has been suppression of material fact, as the petitioner has not revealed before this Court that a new registration was obtained by the petitioner subsequent to cancellation of the earlier registration.
• The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that Article 226 of the COI is a discretionary jurisdiction which is to be exercised for petitioners who are acting in a good faith.
• It was held that the principle of uberrima fides requires a party that comes to a Court to act in utmost good faith. This principle is the genesis of the expectation of the Court to pass orders at the behest of the petitioner who has approached the Court with clean hands.
  • The moment this trust is broken, and it is discovered that there is suppression of material facts, the Court is bound to dismiss the said petition without granting any relief whatsoever to the petitioner.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Principle of Uberrima Fides

• The principle of uberrima fides is a Latin phrase that translates to utmost good faith.
• It requires the advocate to act in the best interests of the client.

Article 226 of the COI

About:

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the COI which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs.
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose.
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -
  • Located within its jurisdiction or
  • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arises either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction.
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32.
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government.
  • This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right. It cannot be suspended, even during an emergency.
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”.
  • It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights.
• The following writs are available under this Article:
  • Writ of Habeas Corpus
  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Writ of Certiorari
  • Writ of prohibition
  • Writ of Quo warranto

Case Laws:

• In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32 as Article 226 can be issued to safeguard legal rights as well.
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the writ under Article 226 can also be issued for the enforcement of public responsibilities by public authorities.