Definition Of Pleading: Rule 1

"Pleading is defined as plaint or written statement."[1] According to Mogha, "Pleadings are statements in writing drawn up and filed by each party to a case, stating what his contentions will be at the trial and giving all such details as his opponent needs to know in order to prepare his case in answer."[2]

A plaintiff's plea is his plaint, which would be a statement of claim in which the plaintiff sets out his cause of action in all requisite particulars, and a defendant's plea is his written statement, which is a protection in which the defendant deals with every material fact alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as any new facts that are in his favour, as well as any legal objections he wishes to raise to the claim.

ORDER 6 is concerned with pleadings. Rule 1 establishes the definition of pleading, while Rule 2 establishes the fundamentals of it. Each p arty is obliged to provide appropriate details under Rules 3 to 13. Pleadings are signed and verified according to Rules 14 and 15. A court can throw out superfluous pleas under Rule 16. Modification of pleadings is addressed in Rules 17 and 18.

Object
The goal of pleading is to bring sides to a consensus on problems, reduce costs and delays, and avoid surprises at the court. A party has the right to be aware about the facts of the other party's case so that he can respond. To put it another way, the main purpose of pleading is to determine the true disagreements between the sides, to limit the space of dispute and see where the two parties diverge, to keep one side from surprising the other, and to avoid a miscarriage of fairness and justice.[3]

In Virendra Kashinath v. Vinayak N. Joshi,[4] the Supreme Court stated, "The object of the rule is twofold. First is to afford the other side intimation regarding the particular facts of his case so that they may be met by the other side. Second is to enable the court to determine what is really the issue between the parties."[5]

Importance
Jacob[6] states:
"Pleadings do not only define the issues between the parties for the final decision of the court at the trial, they manifest and exert their importance throughout the whole process of the litigation." The correct manner of hearing is guided by the pleadings. They show who bears the onus of presenting proof and who has the authority to initiate the suit.

Basic Rules Of Pleadings: Rule 2
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 lays down the fundamental principles of pleadings. It reads as under:
2(1). "Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved."

The following general principles arise from the assessment:

1. Facts should be stated, not law, in the pleading;
2. The facts given should be relevant information;
3. The evidence should not be stated in the pleading; and
4. The information should be presented in a precise manner.

Let's take a closer look at these principles:

1. Facts And Not Law
   The foremost rule of pleadings is that they must only present facts rather than legislation. It is the sides' responsibility to provide only the details that support their argument. It is up to a judge to decide how the rules should be applied to the facts.[7]
   
   In a few words, the law of pleading can be summed up: "Plead facts, not law."[8]
   
   As a result, the presence of a custom or use is a matter of fact that must be argued precisely. In the same way, purpose is a question of fact that must be pleaded.
   
   Waiver or recklessness is a factual plea that must be included in the plea.
    
2. Material Facts
   Recently, in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh,[9] the Supreme Court stated:
   
   The next rule of pleading is that they must solely include a representation of material facts. Despite the fact that the term "material facts" is not outlined in the Code, it refers to all factual information that are relevant to the plaintiff's claim for damages or the defendant's protection.[10]
   
   The Supreme Court recently stated in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh:[11]
   
   "The phrase material facts may be said to be those facts upon which a party relies for his claim or defence. In other words, material facts are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defence depends. What particulars could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down."[12]
   
   What specifics must be disclosed relies on the facts and circumstances, but it is critical that the plea, in order to avoid embarrassment to the defense, disclose those details that will put his opponent on notice and inform them of what they can expect when the matter goes to court.[13]
    
3. Facts And Not Evidence
   The third pleadings concept is that the proof of facts, as opposed to the facts themselves, are not required to be proved. To put it another way, the pleadings should include a declaration of material facts on which the party depends, but not the proof used to verify those facts.[14]
   
   There are two categories of facts:
   
   1. facta probanda-the facts that must be proven (material facts); and
   2. Facta probantia-the facts that will be used to prove them (particulars or evidence).
       
   Only facta probanda, not facta probantia, shall be included in the pleading. Facta probanda must be expressed in the plaint or written statement, as the need may be. However, the facts or proof used to verify the material facts are known as facta probantia and are not required to be mentioned in the pleadings. They are not the "fact in issue," but rather only important details that must be proven at hearing to determine the fact in issue.
   
   As observed by Lord Denman, C.J.,[15] "It is an elementary rule in pleading, that, when a state of facts is relied on, it is enough to allege it simply, without setting out the subordinate facts which are the means of producing it, or the evidence sustaining the allegation."
   
   The Supreme Court stated in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh,[16] after referencing to the key English and Indian decisions on the subject:
   
   There is a contrast between facta probanda (the facts that must be established, i.e. substantial facts) and facta probantia (the facts that must be proven) (the facts by means of which they are proved i.e. particulars or evidence). Pleadings may only contain facta probanda but not facta probantia, according to established law. The facta probanda are the material facts on which the party bases his claim, and they must be disclosed in the pleadings.
   
   However, the fact or facts that are used to prove facta probanda (material facts) that are in the nature of facta probantia (particulars or evidence) do not have to be included in the pleadings. They are not "facts in dispute," but rather "relevant facts" that must be shown at trial in order to establish the fact in question.[17] To put it another way, the line of demarcation between these two kinds of facts (facta probanda and facta probantia) is sometimes hard to draw; yet, a fact about which it is unclear if it belongs in one or the other must be argued.[18]
    
4. Concise Form
   The last but not the least concept of pleadings is that they must be written in a concise and precise manner and must be conveyed clearly in a logical order.
   
   The significance of a specific plea can only be understood if it is understood that the defendant is at a significant disadvantageous position without one. He has to know what kind of situation he'll be dealing with. The plea must be accurate, explicit, and clear. A side cannot be permitted to leave his options open until the trial and present any evidence he or she deems appropriate.[19]
   
   The phrases "in a brief form" indicate that conciseness should be followed when preparing pleas. Of obviously, conciseness should not come at the expense of omitting crucial information. Pleas can be spared from tautology if attention is exercised in the syntactic procedure.[20]
   
   Paras and sub-paras should be used to separate each plea. Each accusation must be separated into its own para. Dates, totals, and numbers must be represented in figures as well as verbally. Rule 3 specifies that when the forms in Appendix A of the Code are applicable, they shall be used; if they aren't, forms of similar character should be used.

Other Rules Of Pleadings: Rules 4-18

Over and above the aforesaid basic rules, there are other rules of pleadings dealing with cases of a special nature. They have been laid down in Rules 4 to 18 of Order 6.

They may be summarised thus:

1. Wherever misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence are pleaded in the pleadings, particulars with dates and items should be stated.
   
   In Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai,[21] the Supreme Court observed:
   
   "General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud which any court ought to take notice of, however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion."[22]
    
2. As previously indicated, the purpose of plea is to drive the sides to a hearing by focusing their attention on the topic in conflict, narrowing the conflict to specific issues and informing the sides of the type of evidence needed on either side to help their individual arguments. This can never be accomplished with a broad or wide appeal. Rule 4 was created with the goal of narrowing the issue and protecting the side accused of wrongdoing from being caught off guard. As a result, if the specifics indicated in the plea are insufficient and explicit, the judge shall insist on the specifics that provide proper notice to the other side of the case intended to be set up[23] before starting with the hearing of the suit.
    
3. Because it is inferred in the pleas, the execution of a condition antecedent does not need to be pleaded. Non-compliance with a condition antecedent, on the other hand, must be pleaded precisely and clearly.
    
4. Departures from plea are not permitted, and no side may establish any claims or make any factual assertion conflicting with his earlier pleadings unless by amendment.
    
5. A mere refusal of an agreement by the other side will be read only as a refusal of the agreement's factum, not its legitimacy, validity, or enforceability.
    
6. Unless the statements in the documents are significant, they do not have to be stated out in detail in the pleas.
    
7. Where malignancy, deceptive purpose, foreknowledge, or any other aspect of an individual's mind is relevant, it may well be asserted solely as a fact in the plea without stating the situation out of which it is to be deduced. Such situations do, in fact, qualify as proof of substantial facts.
    
8. When giving notification to someone is required or needed as a precondition, pleas must only say that notification is being given, not specifying the manner or the terms of the notification or the conditions from which it is to be deduced, unless they are significant.
    
9. Implicit agreements or relationships among people can be argued as facts, and the chain of mails, discussions, and situations from which they can be drawn must all be pleaded.

Forms Of Pleading

Pleadings shall use the forms in Appendix A of the (First) Schedule for averments. However, the forms are not legally binding. As a result, non-compliance would not lead the suit being dismissed. On such basis, a side will not be unsuitable.[24]

Pleading In Writ Petitions

There is essential distinction between pleading under the Code and a pleading under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution. Under the Code, every pleading (plaint or written statement) should state only material facts and not evidence. In a writ petition, on the other hand, the petitioner, or in a counter affidavit, the respondent, should not only state material facts but also the evidence in support and proof of such facts by annexing necessary orders and documents.[25]

Alternative And Inconsistent Pleadings

The term "alternative" can refer to either one of two components. It implies a decision. A side to a lawsuit could include two different sets of facts or more in his pleas and seek redress in the alternative. Also, "inconsistent" denotes something that is mutually disagreeable, conflicting, incompatible, or damaging. The two are diametrically opposed. As a result, neither can stand. Admission or institution of one entails the renunciation or revocation of the other.

The basic aim of permitting alternative pleadings and alternative reliefs to be argued in a single lawsuit is to avoid the need for a second lawsuit and to resolve the whole dispute in just one.[26]

As a result, a claim for possession of property might be brought either on the premise of ownership or on the premise of a lease. Likewise, landlords can sue his renter for expulsion on the basis of individual necessity or, in the alternate, non-payment of rent. A request for particular fulfilment of a contract, or a request for losses or recompense, might be put forth in the same way.[27]

A side is not prohibited by the Code from creating two or more incompatible group of claims.[28] A claimant can depend on countless distinctive rights at once, even if they are incompatible, and the defendent can make as many unique and separate incompatible defences as he sees fit in his statement of defense, without the court's permission.

Even if the litigants' pleas are mutually incompatible, relief may be given if remedy can be based on the alternative plea. This is subject to the condition that the plea does not prejudice or humiliate the suit's proper hearing. However, a plea isn't humiliating since it reveals an inconsistency of facts or incompatible pleadings.

Although incongruous pleadings are not illegal, the judge views them with skepticism, and the side who employs this style of plea faces a substantial risk. Similarly, a litigant who enters incompatible pleadings and attempts to prove both by conflicting oral evidence puts oneself in jeopardy since the proof presented in favor of both pleadings will be discordant, inconsistent, and mutually damaging, and will not inspire much confidence.

Furthermore, all conflicting pleadings submitted by a side must be admissible in court. [29] As a result, a claimant cannot ask for both a statement that an agreement is invalid and specific performance of the same agreement, as this is prohibited under "Section 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877."[30] Furthermore, such inconsistencies are subject to Rule 16 of Order 6, which allows the judge to wipe out any content in the plaint or written declaration that could jeopardise the suit's proper hearing.

Construction Of Pleadings

In India, pleadings should be interpreted liberally. As a result, they should not be taken literally. They must be interpreted with the low literacy of the poor in mind. They must be read in its entirety, not in sections or in isolation. The principal goal of pleadings should be derived from the overall tenor and wording of the pleadings. Pleadings are neither statutes nor strict regulations, thus they should be read using the common sense of a reasonable person. Pleadings are not intended to block a fair trial; rather, they are intended to assist courts in reaching a fair and just verdict.

In case of Madan Gopal v. Mamraj Maniram[31], Supreme Court clearly stated that pleadings should be flexible in character, and that courts should not scrutinise pleadings with such zeal that valid claims are lost on frivolous grounds.

In Ram Sarup v. Bishnu Narain Inter College[32], it was stated clearly that evidence submitted by the parties cannot be regarded in the absence of pleading. No party should be allowed to go beyond the scope of its pleading.

In the leading case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal[33], it has been held that the plaintiff's lawsuit will not be dismissed solely because the claim is incorrectly characterised, a mistaken portion is referenced, or sufficient remedies is not sought.

Signing And Verification Of Pleadings

Signing of Pleading: Each pleading must be signed by either one of the parties or the party's pleader or both. If the party is unable to sign the pleading, any person authorised by the party can sign it.

Verification of Pleading: Every pleading must be double-checked by the respondent, one of the respondents, or some other person with knowledge of the facts. The individual checking the pleading must specify which sections he checks depending on his own expertise and which ones he confirms depending on the information he has obtained and thinks to be correct.

Process of Verification: The verification must be signed on an affidavit by the person performing the verification, and it must include the date and location of the signature. Affidavits in support of the pleadings should be provided by the person confirming the pleadings.

The purpose of this provision is to place responsibility for the statement contained in the verification on the party verifying or on whose behalf verification is made, and to avoid disputes as much as possible as to whether the suit was instituted or defended with the knowledge or authority of the party who signed the verification or on whose behalf it has been signed.[34]

Defect in the matter of signing and verification of pleadings: It's only an irregularity that can be corrected later with the court's approval, and a lawsuit cannot be rejected because of a defect or inconsistency in the signing or verifying of the plaint or written statement. Similarly, rather than dismissing a party's affidavit, a court may give the party an opportunity to produce a competent affidavit.[35]

Striking Out Pleadings

Any pleading that is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, or that attempts to prejudice, embarrass, or prolong the fair trial of the matter, or is otherwise an abuse of the court's process in the interest of justice, may be struck out by the court.

In Sathi Vijay Kumar v. Tota Singh[36], the The Supreme Court clarified that a court can order pleadings to be struck in the following circumstances:

1. If the pleading is pointless, outrageous, absurd, or unreasonable; or
2. If the pleading is likely to adversely affect, humiliate, or prolong a proper hearing of the case, it should be dismissed; or
3. If the pleading is although a misuse of the court's procedure, it will be dismissed.

The court does not provide advice to parties on how to construct their pleadings. However, the parties should not violate the standards of pleadings by making revisions or adding pleads that are superfluous and could prejudice, disgrace, or delay a fair trial. The court will intervene in such circumstances. The court must, however, employ this power with caution.

Variance Between Pleading And Proof

It is well established that a party can only bring out material that supports the argument he pled in his pleading, and that he cannot present evidence that contradicts his pleading. Pleadings cannot be replaced by any amount of proof.

The basic rule of pleading is that a side can only triumph if he has pleaded and proven his case. He won't be able to win a case that wasn't set up by him. He also cannot amend his case over the course of the trial if it contradicts his pleas. Such a change would be unexpected and perplexing, and courts would always regard it with disdain and distrust.[37]

If final determination of causes is based on inferences, at odds with the parties' pleadings, it will also add a considerable deal of confusion into judicial procedures.

However, not every difference between the pleading and the proof is inevitably fatal. A party shall not be denied just remedy if the pleading has merit or there is no prejudice to the opposite side. Similarly, deviation that does not catch the other side off guard or induce prejudice is not deadly.

If a particular plea has been raised, it must be determined by reading the entire pleading and focusing on the substance rather than the form of the pleadings. Absence of specific pleading is merely an irregularity when parties are aware of the inconsistency and go to trial fully aware that a specific question is at stake. At any point along the process, a question of law or jurisdiction can be raised.[38]

Objection And Amendments To Pleadings

Pleadings can be amended under Rule 17. The provisions for amending pleadings are meant to aid rather than hinder the pursuit of justice. Ordinarily, the court should not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest, and essential amendments while determining an application for pleading amendment. It should not, on the other hand, allow for illegitimate, dishonest, or needless modifications.

In the leading case of Cropper v. Smith[39], Bowen, L.J., has outlined the purpose of amending pleadings. He believes it is a well-established principle that the purpose of courts is to resolve the parties' rights, not to punish them for their mistakes.

Rule 17 of Order 6 gives the court broad power to allow either party to change or amend his pleading at any time during the proceedings on whatever terms it sees proper. The proviso, on the other hand, restricts the court's ability to allow amendments.

The provisions of Rule 17 apply to a variety of different proceedings, including execution proceedings, insolvency proceedings, arbitration proceedings, election matters, Land Acquisition Act proceedings, claim petitions, and so on. Even if the Code's rules do not apply, courts and tribunals have the authority to establish their own method that is consistent with and founded on broad principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

The provisions of Rule 17 of Order 6 do not exhaust a court's power in a matter of pleadings modification. The court has the ability to alter, and if Rule 17 does not apply, the court can use "Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure."[40]

The rule gives judges a lot of leeway when it comes to amending pleadings. As a general rule, permission to amend will be granted so that the genuine matter in dispute between the parties can be presented in pleadings, provided that the change causes no harm to the opposing party and can be adequately paid for by costs or other terms imposed by the order.

It is submitted in the case of Kisandas v. Rachappa Vithoba[41], all revisions should be accepted if they meet the following two criteria:

1. They must not be unfair to the other side, and
2. They must be essential to resolve the underlying issues in dispute between the parties.

As a result, the two most important criteria to consider before approving an amendment to a party's pleading are: first, whether the amendment is necessary for determining the true matter in disagreement, and second, whether the change may be made without unfairly affecting the opposing party.

If the first criteria are not met, the amendment should be rejected. If the second criterion is not met, the amendment should be granted, even if the court believes the party seeking the amendment will be unable to prove the altered plea. This is the fundamental test that underlies the courts' previously uncharted power to amend pleadings. When this cardinal criterion is not met, no change should be authorised.

The second requirement, which is as crucial, states that no alteration shall be permitted that would be unfair to the opposing party. It is well-established law that an amendment can be made if it does not cause harm to the other party. "There is no unfairness if the opposite party may be compensated by costs," says one fundamental rule.

Thus, the court may allow amendment for the purpose of granting consequential relief; or granting relief based on different approaches to the same facts; or to avoid duplication of or to take account of subsequent events; or to clarify the pleadings; or to allow misdescription of parties to be corrected, and so on.

It's true that courts have a lot of leeway when it comes to amending pleadings. However, the higher the discretion, the greater the risk of abuse. In the end, it's a legal power, and no legal power can be used wrongly, arbitrarily, or irrationally.

Generally, leave to amend will be refused by the court in the following cases:

1. Leave to amend will be denied if the amendment is not required to resolve the real issue in dispute between the parties.
   
   In the case of Edevain v. Cohen[42] it was found that when carelessness was proven, the amendment to supply its particulars was denied, as it was redundant and pointless because the real controversy had already been decided.
    
2. Leave to amend will be denied if it adds a completely new, inconsistent case or affects the suit's or defense's fundamental character.
   
   In Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co[43]., the test for whether the amendment should be granted is whether the defendants can amend without putting the plaintiff in a position where he cannot be recouped, as it were, through any costs allowance or otherwise.
    
3. Leave to amend will be denied if the proposed alteration has the effect of depriving the other side of a legal right that has accumulated in his favour.
   
   In case of Weldon v. Neal[44], every amendment should be authorised if it can be made without causing prejudice or injustice to the opposing party, and one of the circumstances where the amendment may cause unfairness to the opposing party is when it takes away a right that has accrued to him due to the passage of time.
    
4. If the modification request is not presented in good faith, leave to modify will be denied. The amendment was denied as not being bona fide where there is no substantive cause for the case provided by the amendment, or the intention is to defeat or delay the plaintiff's claim, or simply to re-agitate the same question and lead more evidence.

Merits Not To Be Considered
The court should not consider the accuracy or falsehood of the case in the amendment when deciding whether or not the amendment should be granted. At the stage of admitting a request for amendment, the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged.[45]

An application for revision of a plaint or written statement is usually granted by the trial court. However, an appellate or revisional court can grant such a request for pleading amendment. In appropriate cases, the Supreme Court may grant an application for revision of the plaint or written statement.

Notice
When a party to a lawsuit requests an amendment, the opposing party should be given the opportunity to raise an objection to the request. It is not legal or valid to grant an amendment without first hearing the opposing party. However, if the change is solely formal or technical, the lack of warning is irrelevant.

Recording of reasons
When deciding on an application for pleading amendment, the Court must use its best judgement and record the reasons for admitting or refusing the alteration.

Principles
Provisions relating to pleadings amendments must be generously read in order to advance rather than defeat the goals of justice. The goal and objective of pleadings rules is to resolve the underlying dispute between the parties, not to punish them for their faults, negligence, or flaws. The exercise of discretionary power must be guided by legal concerns, and the greater the discretion, the more care and caution must be exercised.[46]

At any point during the proceedings, leave to amend may be granted. No statute of limitations applies to such amending petitions. Leave to modify may be given before, during, or after the trial, or in First Appeal, Second Appeal, Supreme Court, or even execution processes, as long as the decree is legitimate, lawful, and enforceable.

The Amendment Act of 2002 added a proviso to Rule 17 that restricts and curtails the court's power, stating that the court should not allow such amendment after the start of the trial unless it finds that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised by the party before the start of the trial.

Doctrine Of "Relation Back"
In most cases, an amendment is related to the pleading, but the theory is not absolute, unqualified, or universal. The court may, in suitable situations, rule that the amendment take effect from the date the application was filed or the amendment was approved, rather than the date the plaint or written declaration was filed.

Successive Applications
As a general rule, if an application for amendment is denied on the merits, a second application based on the same allegations will be denied. However, if circumstances change, an application for amendment may be filed as long as no prejudice is caused to the other party. Similarly, if an earlier application is withdrawn, dismissed for default, or not decided on the merits, a new application must be filed.

The rule gives the court unrestricted latitude in deciding what terms to apply when granting a motion to amend pleadings. In most cases, revision will be permitted if the party updating his pleadings pays the opposing party's fees. However, the costs awarded should be reasonable rather than exemplary.

In Biiendra Nath v. Mayank Srivastava[47], the Supreme Court correctly recognised that where a party has accepted the costs as a condition antecedent to the amendment, the law of estoppel precludes the party from contesting the order of amendment. In a case where a direction for payment of costs is made independently of the court's exercise of discretionary power, this concept cannot be applied.

Appeal
An order granting or denying a request for amendment is neither a "decree" as defined in Section 2(2)[48] nor an order subject to appeal under Section 104[49] read with Order 43 of the Code. As a result, there is no way to challenge such a decision. An order accepting or disallowing an application, on the other hand, can be challenged in a decree appeal.

Revision
An order allowing or refusing amendment is a "case decided," subject to the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.

Because it is within the trial court's discretion to allow an amendment while exercising powers under Section 151 of the Code, the High Court will typically not interfere with the trial court's use of discretion.

Failure To Amend
If a person who has received an injunction for leave to amend doesn't really modify within the time specified in the order, or within 14 days from the date of the order if no period is indicated, he will not be able to amend after the stipulated time or 14 days has gone, unless the court expands the term. However, it does not result in the case being dismissed. Even after the intended deadline has gone, the court has the ability to extend the term. In some cases, the court will allow the party to proceed with the amendment even though he has not paid the additional expenses.

Conclusion
Pleadings are the foundation of any legal case. The pleading lays out the case. It is the cornerstone upon which a party's case is built. Pleadings not only outline the issues between the parties for the court's final decision at the trial, but they also manifest and exercise their importance throughout the entire litigation process.

It establishes who bears the burden of proof and who has the authority to initiate the case. It also establishes a limit on the amount of relief that the Court can provide. It instructs the parties on how to construct arguments and learn about the opposing party's arguments in order to build claims or defences by either party.

It provides direction during the suit's voyage. They also establish the scope of admissible evidence that the parties may present at trial. The fundamental norms of pleadings, as well as modifications to them, are laid out in the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions are intended to create societal balance and the ultimate goal of justice.

End-Notes:

1. Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534
2. Mogha's Law of Pleadings (1983) at p. 1.
3. Throp v. Holdsworth, (1876) 3 Ch D 637.
4. (1999) 1 SCC 47: AIR 1999 SC 162.
5. Ibid, at p. 52 (SCC).
6. The Present Importance of Pleadings (1960) at pp. 75­76, Bullen, Leake and Jacob, Precedents and Pleadings, Mogha's Law of Pleadings, supra
7. Kedar Lal v. Hari Lai, AIR 1952 SC 47 at p. 51.
8. Gouri Dutt Ganesh Lall Firm v. Madho Prasad, AIR 1943 PC 147.
9. (2007) 3 SCC 617.
10. Union of India v. Sita Ram, (1976) 4 SCC 505.
11. (2007) 3 SCC 617
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. R.M. Seshadri v. G. Vasantha Pai, (1969) 1 SCC 27 at pp. 34-­35.
15. Williams v. Wilcox, 112 ER 857.
16. (2007) 3 SCC 617.
17. Ibid.
18. Millington v. Loring, (1880) 6 QB 190 (CA).
19. Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, (1984) 1 SCC 390 at pp. 405­-06.
20. Virendra Kashinath v. Vinayak N. Joshi, (1999) 1 SCC 47 at p. 52.
21. AIR 1951 SC 280.
22. Ibid.
23. Ladli Prashad v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. 1963 AIR 1279.
24. R.C. Chandiok v. Chuni Lal, (1970) 3 SCC 140.
25. Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana. (1988) 4 SCC 534.
26. Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534.
27. Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 647.
28. Bhuban Mohini v. Kumud Bala, AIR 1924 Cal 467.
29. Prem Raj v. D.L.F. Housing and Construction Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 1355 at pp. 1356­57
30. The Specific Relief Act 1877, s. 37.
31. AIR 1976 SC 461
32. AIR 1987 SC 1242
33. AIR 1955 SC 425
34. A.K.K. Nambiar v. UoI (1969) 3 SCC 864
35. Dwarka Nath v. ITO, AIR 1966 SC 81
36. (2006) 13 SCC 353
37. Narendra v. Abhoy, AIR 1934 Cal 54
38. State of Rajasthan v. Rao Raja Kalyan Singh, (1972) 4 SCC 165
39. (1884) LR 26 Ch D 700
40. The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s. 151.
41. ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644
42. (1889) LR 43 Ch D 187 (CA)
43. (1886) LR 16 QBD 178 (CA)
44. (1887) LR 19 QB 394 (CA)
45. Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2007) 7 SCC 559
46. Dalip Kumar v. Major Singh, AIR 1996 P&H 107
47. (1994) 6 SCC 117
48. The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s.2(2).
49. The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s. 104.