Pleadings

  1. A party cannot be permitted to succeeded in a case which it has not put up in its pleadings. Beero  v.  Mst. Said Bi 1992 SCR 286 (B)
  2. Evidence in support of plea not taken in pleadings cannot be looked into — Contradictory stands-effect-divergence between the pleadings and evidence-correction of entries of khasra girdawari would not help the case. Muhammad Amin v. Younis 1993 SCR 340 (A)
  3. If a party proves a different case at the trial from one set up in pleading – such a party is not entitled to any relief- evidence of fact not pleaded- cannot be looked into. Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Latif 1993 SCR 335 (A)
  4. No party is allowed to blow both hot and cold at the same time — Contradictory stands at different stages — appeal dismissed. M. Aslam v. The Custodian Evacuee Property 1994 SCR 74 (B
  5. Any plea which is totally contrary or inconsistent with the original plea taken in the written statement cannot be allowed to be raised and made basis of the judgment. Ch. Walayat Khan v. Ch. Muhammad Azam 1995 SCR 384 (B)
  6. Court has to go by the pleadings of the parties and should not allow the parties to travel beyond them. The order of the Prime Minister which the learned Judges has ordered to be implemented does not find any mention in the writ petition. The mere fact that a photostat copy of the order was appended with the writ petition does not warrant that it should have been brought under consideration. AJK Government & 4 others v. Spintex Limited 1998 SCR 167 (E)
  7. A party cannot be permitted to resile from its case set up in pleadings until and unless it amends its pleadings or resiles from its earlier stand by any other procedure recognised by law. Abdul Karim and 5 others  v. Muhammad Nisar and another 1998 SCR 296 (B)
  8. New point — Question of fact raised first time in appeal — Effect of — Departure of pleading — The question whether any dispute was pending before Mirpur Development Authority at the time of the transfer of jurisdiction of the said area is a question of fact and the same could not be agitated by the appellant herein for the first time in appeal — This is well settled principle of law that a party cannot make departure from his pleading and set up a new case, particularly when such case needs investigations of question of fact. MCM v. M. Farooq and 2 others 2000 SCR 388 (A)
  9. A judgment has to be based on pleading of the parties — A Court or Tribunal cannot travel beyond pleading. Zahida Mahmood  v. Muhammad Sabir Khan and 5 others 2000 SCR 78 (C)
  10. It is settled proposition of law that evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be looked into — Any evidence produced by the parties without facts about sale-deed in their respective pleadings cannot be looked into — Case remanded to the trial Court with the direction that it shall allow the appellant to file additional written statement, if any, and struck down additional issues, if necessary, and allow the parties to lead evidence in support of such additional issues. Muhammad Naib v. Amirullah and 39 others 2001 SCR 577 (A)
  11. Pleadings — Relief — Prayer for — Court duty — Court is duty bound to see whether relief prayed for is legally allowable under rules. Ghulam Qadir & another v. The Custodian Evacuee Property and 13 others 2002 SCR 183 (A)
  12. If in the pleading of a party there is no allegation against a particular defendant with regard to the existence of certain right in favour of plaintiff and its denial by defendant — That relief cannot be given to the plaintiff. Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Walayat & 3 others 2002 SCR 76 (A)
  13. It is well settled principle of law that a point which is not taken in the pleadings of a party cannot be made basis for giving him the relief. Custodian of Evacuee Property & 7 others v. Tariq Mahmood Butt 2002 SCR 38 (A)
  14. Proof of — In the written statement, the case of Muhammad Mushtaq and others is that plot in dispute was exchanged with plot No.41 which was in the ownership of Ilam Din, the father of Muhammad Mushtaq, but according to Ex.DB/3, the plot appears to have been sold to Muhammad Mushtaq for a consideration of Rs.1350/- Thus, there is clear variance between the proof and pleadings  — The High Court has rightly held that the exchange of the plot is not proved — It appears that initially the case of Abdul Aziz, appellant, was that plot in question was in his possession but subsequently, he suggested to the witnesses for the opposite party in cross-examination that the possession of plot was taken by Muhammad Iqbal forcibly during pendency of the litigation — Thus, the trial Court has rightly held that it was a belated stand and has no foundation. Abdul Aziz  v. Muhammad Mushtaq and 5 others 2002 SCR 201 (A)
  15. Proof of — It was for the deceased-appellant to plead in the writ petition as to how the utility of plot No.150-A has affected by the creation of plot No.195-A — This has neither been pleaded in the writ petition nor there is any material in support of the same. Abdul Latif Abbasi & 3 others v. Chairman M.D.A. & 6 others 2002 SCR 208 (B)
  16. It is a settled proposition of law that any evidence oral or documentary can be looked into and discussed within the limits of pleadings of parties — Attested copies of public documents or original documents are admissible in evidence — Basically such documents must be tendered in evidence before the trial Court — At appellate stage in routine without proper excuse even documentary evidence cannot be allowed to be made part of file — This Court is basically a Court of appeal and has to judge judicial verdict of Courts below in light of pleadings and evidence of the parties — No document can be made part of any record until & unless conditions laid down under the relevant law are fulfilled. Muhammad Azam  v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2003 SCR 292 (B)
  17. No doubt a copy of the judgment of the Addl. District Judge Pallandri was produced through which market value of the land situated in village Jhanda Begla was fixed as Rs.80,000/- per kanal and also a sale-deed in which the market value of the land was above Rs. 1 lakh — Two witnesses were also produced to prove that market value of the land was above Rs. 1 lakh per kanal — This evidence cannot be taken into consideration as it is beyond the pleadings. AJ&K Govt. and 2 others v. Abdul Salam Butt & 3 others 2003 SCR 287 (B)
  18. The law stands settled on the point that the relief which is not the part of the pleadings of a party cannot be given to it by the Courts as the civil law is the law of omission and commission. Azad Govt. & others v. Muhammad Afzal Shah and another 2003 SCR 22 (D)
  19. A party is not expected to go beyond its pleadings and the lacunas cannot be filled up at the stage of arguments without specifically taking a plea in the pleadings — A judgment has to be based on pleadings of the parties and a Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings of the parties. Azad Govt. & 6 others v. Faqir Hussain Shah and another 2004 SCR 23 (C)
  20. It is settled principle of law that a party before demanding anything from the Court must plead the same in its pleadings — No relief can be granted to any party which is beyond the scope of its pleadings. – Javed Iqbal and 5 others  v. Social Welfare Deptt. and 5 others 2004 SCR 435 (A)
  21. The Courts established under law are required to decide the disputes between the parties by confining themselves to the pleading of the parties — Therefore, it is not felt expedient to discuss the authorities which were referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties — If on  the basis of pleading of the parties a law having bearing on the case is not referred to or relief upon by the parties the Courts can apply such law because the litigant public or the learned advocates may not refer correct law before the Court the Presiding Officers of the Courts are duty bound to apply correct law. Abdul Ghaffar Sulehria  v. Azad Govt. & others 2004 SCR 417 (B)
  22. The Judges have to apply correct law but one thing should be kept in mind that judgment should not run beyond the scope of the pleadings or parties. Board of Trustee & another v. Muhammad Azam Durrani 2004 SCR 401 (C)
  23. Evidence — Evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be made basis for resolution of any controversy between the parties. Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Anwar 2006 SCR 82 (A)
  24. Any evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be looked into and in case of divergence between pleadings and evidence of a party, the benefit shall go to the other side. Munshi Khan & another v. Shah Muhammad & others 2006 SCR 94 (B)
  25. Evidence —  It is settled law that evidence cannot be against the pleadings nor can the evidence take place of pleadings. Muhammad Hussain v. Barkat Hussain & 22 others 2006 SCR 207 (A)
  26. It is well settled principle of law that the parties cannot go beyond their pleadings. Raja Muhammad Saeed Khan v. Sardar Khani Zaman Khan and 11 others 2006 SCR 271 (A)
  27. S.9 C.P.C. — Ordinarily the Courts cannot travel beyoned the pleadings of the parties and enter into the controversy jurisdiction of civil Court to hear a cause brought before them — S. 9 C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on civil Courts to have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of civil matters unless jurisdiction is barred expressly or by necessary implication — Civil Courts are bound to dive deep into and be careful while deciding such like cases in which the parties by compromise, evasive denials and through unregistered deeds and documents attempt to get declaration of little or ownership, through a judgment or a decree of civil Court to the detriment of other owners or parties having a legal right or claim. Khalid Hussain v. Haji M. Rafique 2008 SCR 207 (E)
  28. It is celebrated principle of law that no party can travel beyond its pleadings — Respondent No.1 has categorically taken a stand in para 9 of memo of appeal before the Service Tribunal that no adverse order was communicated to him and he got knowledge of all the orders passed by the departmental authorities on service of order dated 18.9.2003 — This factual assertion of the respondent has not been denied by the present appellant and pro forma respondents. Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. Muhammad basher & 5 others 2010 SCR 208 (C)
  29. The Court has to go by the pleadings of the parties and it has no jurisdiction to decide a case which has not been put forward by any party. Until and unless the party specifically prays for a relief such relief cannot be granted. Azad Govt. v. Ayesha Shoukat & anothers 2011 SCR 119 (A)
  30. Relief — Moulded relief — The relief has to be granted to a party in the light of pleadings. Held: The Court cannot grant such relief which is not prayed for, but the Court has vast powers to grant a relief which is akin to or flows out of the main relief prayed for by the parties and is just and equitable. Further held: The Court has powers to grant a moulded relief so that parties shall not be burdened by the multiplicity of the litigation. M. Aziz Khan & 11 others v. Feroz Din & 11 others 2011 SCR 378 (B) 2003 SCR 21 rel.
  31. The appointment notification on the strength of which the appellant wants to built up his case in this Court was not challenged before any forum, therefore, no relief can be claimed which is not prayed. It is settled principle of law that no relief can be granted beyond the pleadings. Hafiz Muhammad Abid v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2014 SCR 1608 (B) 2003 SCR 22. rel.
  32. Amendment of — the amendment application can liberally be allowed at any stage of the proceedings even at the stage of appeal in Supreme Court, provided the proposed amendment is just and necessary for resolving the real controversy between the parties, the complexion of suit is not changed, the application has not been filed with mala fide intention to prolong the proceedings and it does not take away the accrued rights of a party. Mst. Maqsood Begum  & 14 others v. Naseem Akhter & 9 others 2016 SCR 33 (A)
  33. Writ — amendment to implead necessary  party — delay — laches — the amendment application filed after a period of more than 9 months — No explanation or cause, whatsoever, has been shown for not arraying the necessary party at the time of filing the writ petition — The District Judge is a necessary party and without impleading him as party just decision is not possible — A valuable right has accrued in favour of other party which cannot be snatched by allowing the application for amendment suffering from laches. Mst. Maqsood Begum v. Naseem Akhter 2016 SCR 33 (C)
  34. Amendment of — can be allowed on the ground of some subsequent event which may occur during the pendency of the suit/appeal. Amendment even can be allowed during pendency of appeal in the Supreme Court. Abdul Rashid & another v. Munir Akhtar 128 (B) 2013 SCR 139 rel.
  35. Amendment of — on the ground that during pendency of appeal in the High Court, the appellant No.2 exchanged the land with appellant No.1 — Held: No stay order issued by the High Court. The exchange deed and mutation sanctioned on the basis of said exchange-deed will be valid till the decree for possession on the basis of right of prior purchase remains intact in favour of appellant No.1 — if appeal is accepted, the decree is set aside, then the exchange deed of mutation sanctioned shall ipso fact fall — In that case the exchange deed will confer no right in appellant No. 2 Further held: the proposed amendment is not necessary for just decision of the case. Abdul Rashid & another v. Munir Akhtar 2016 SCR 128 (C)
  36. amendment of — it is settled principle of law that an application for amendment in pleadings can be moved at any stage even in the Supreme Court and mere filing of application at belated stage, is not a legal justification for its rejection. Azad Govt. & anothers v. Shah Ghulam Qadir & 12 others 2016 SCR 475 (A) PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K) 1 rel.
  37. No relief beyond pleadings — contrary to record — writ petition — It is correct that the petitioners in the writ petition have not prayed for issuance of direction for implementation of Chief Executive’s order rather they approached the Court for issuance of direction to all the respondents including the Government for up-gradation of the posts on the basis of principle of parity with Punjab. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants has substance that the relief granted is beyond the scope of the writ petition and also contrary to record. Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Muhammad Younas Abbasi & 12 others  2016 SCR 887 (B)
  38. Amendment of — Amendment is always allowed where due to change in circumstances or due to subsequent events the real controversy cannot be resolved — Under the changed circumstances, the plaintiff may seek amendment of the plaint for adding further relief. Dr. Bushra Shams v. Azad Govt, & 4 others 2016 SCR 1271 (B)
  39. —The judgment can be based upon the pleadings of the parties—the point which was not part of the pleadings, cannot be made basis for delivering the judgment. Munshi Khan & others v. Mehboob Khan 2017 SCR 129 (H) 1995 SCR 208 ref.
  40. — A different case has been established by the appellant that the land in dispute was transferred to the appellant by her sisters through registered gift-deed, whereas, no such plea was taken by the appellant in his pleadings. Even no such point has been raised before the learned High Court or before this Court. In this scenario, the learned High Court was fully justified to hold that the appellant never took plea in pleading that disputed land was gifted to him by his sisters; therefore, Held: the statements of the witnesses are against the principle of pleadings. Miskeen v. Mst. Jan Bibi & others 2017 SCR 478 (A)
  41. —-no relief—can be granted—beyond pleadings—argument: that the property was devolved upon Mst. Zaitoon Bibi under customary law, it may be observed that there was not the case of the either party that the property was devolved under the customary law. There is no cavil with the proposition that no relief beyond the pleadings can be granted. Argument repelled. Muhammad Maqbool                                                  v. Muhammad Younas & another 2017 SCR 903 (C)
  42.                 —according to settled principle of law, the Courts have to decide the propositions on the basis of pleadings of the parties and other material brought on the record—Held: The propositions requiring examination of the record and other material cannot be resolved in vacuum in absence of such required material. Amir Shameem & 23 others v. Azad Government & 11 others 2017 SCR 684 (A)
  43.                 —The Courts have to decided the cases according to the pleadings of the parties. Zulfiqar Azam v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 697 (D)
  44. —Amendment of—the amendment in the pleadings which is contradictory and changes the complexion, cannot be allowed. Ghulam Sarwar & others v. Fateh Muhammad & another 2017 SCR 1283 (B)
  45.  —Amendment at appeal stage— after adverse decision recorded by the three Courts below, the contradictory prayer of amendment cannot be allowed otherwise it will frustrate the very purpose of administration of justice and there will be no end to litigation. Ghulam Sarwar & others v. Fateh Muhammad & another 2017 SCR 1283 (C)
  46. —The parties are bound by their pleadings and relief cannot be claimed or granted beyond the pleaded facts. Imran Khurshid vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 282 (M)
  47. —Parties are not allowed to deviate from their pleadings and build a new case contrary to the version taken in the pleadings. Muhammad Muneer v. Naveeda Khalid 2019 SCR 394 (B)
  48. —amendment in pleadings—principle for allowing amendment in pleadings—It may be observed here that according to  the statutory provisions as well as the enunciated principle of law by the Supreme Court, the amendment in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage even before the Supreme Court, but it is also well settled law that while deciding the amendment applications, the Courts have to take into consideration that the proposed amendments is necessary for just decision of the case, the nature of the plaint/written statement may not be changed and new cause of action shall not arise. Muhammad Zaman Tabasum  v. Mehmood Ahmed Butt 2019 SCR 597 (A)
  49. —Courts have to decide the cases on the basis of propositions raised and emerged from pleadings and not beyond— Tariq Rashid & others v. University of AJ&K & 7 others 2019 SCR 766 (A)
  50. —amendment of—limitation will be computed from the date of permission for amendment—when due to efflux of time the right has been accrued to other party—the amendment cannot be allowed mere for the purpose of litigation— Sajjad Ahmed v. The Chief Conservator Forests & 6 others 2020 SCR 110 (A)
  51. —amendment of—service matter—in service matters every order from which a civil servant becomes aggrieved, gives birth to new cause of action—order challenged according to its nature, gives rise to different cause of action, which not only changes the complexion of appeal but by efflux of time the right have been accrued to the other party—Held: the amendment cannot be allowed if by efflux of time, the rights are accrued to the other party— Sajjad Ahmed v. The Chief Conservator Forests & 6 others 2020 SCR 110 (B & C) 2001 CLC 946, 2004 CLC 333 and PLD 1995 Quetta 5 rel
  52.  —The appellants enjoyed benefit of Notification of their promotion—contradictory stand about having no knowledge of adverse entry in the said Notification— Held: the appellants cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in one breadth, while enjoying the promotion effected through the notification dated 05.10.2018 and equally denying the awareness about the same. Muhammad Ayoub Awan & 3 others v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2020 SCR 286 (B)
  53. —See Secretary Health & another versus Muhammad Latif & 5 others  2021 SCR  693 (D)
  54. —see Tahir Akbar v. Raja Tahir & others 2022 SCR 189 (C)  
  55. — A judgment has to be based on pleadings of the parties and the Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings. Sadaf Iftikhar v. P.S.C & others 2022 SCR 954 (A) 2000 SCR 78 rel.
  56. —Non-signing of pleadings—effect of—Order VI, rule 14 & 15, CPC—non-signing of pleadings can be cured later on by permission of Court—all documents were duly signed by the appellant and his counsel but writ petition was not signed— under rule 14, the pleadings shall be signed by the party and his pleader, however, if a party by reason of his absence or for good cause could not sign the pleadings, it may be signed by any other person duly authorized by him to sign the same. Rule 15, provides that every pleading shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. Muhammad Hafeez & others v. Govt. of AJ&K & others  2022 SCR 1054 (B) PLD 1968 Lahore 527; 1981 SCMR 687; PLD 1988 SC AJ&K 42; PLD 1990 SC AJK 13; 2005 CLD 854 and 2011 CLD 408 rel.
  57. —Effect of non-signing of pleadings—nature provisions of law, CPC, regarding signing of pleadings—whether to be construed strictly or liberally—Held: Rules regarding verification and signatures on plaint, being matter relating to procedure, were to be liberally construed. Such presentation or signing could not make plaint a nullity. Rules and regulations are only meant to streamline the procedure and administer the course of justice, but not thwart the same. Muhammad Hafeez & others v. Govt. of AJ&K & others  2022 SCR 1054 (D)
  58. —Writ petition—effect of non-signing of writ petition or verification of the same—Held: the omission to verify the pleading by the authorized person does not give rise to any penal consequences because signatures, verification and drafting of the writ petition in a particular manner are matter of mere procedure, same cannot be strictly construed. Muhammad Hafeez & others v. Govt. of AJ&K & others  2022 SCR 1054 (F)
  59. —Effect of non-signing of pleadings and verification—Held: an aggrieved party approach the Court with a claim enforceable under the law and paid adequate Court fee on subject matter of the case, disclosed relevant fact as to enable the Court to adjudicate upon the matter and nothing more than that is necessary to press a claim. Muhammad Hafeez & others v. Govt. of AJ&K & others  2022 SCR 1054 (G)
  60. —Object of signatures and verifications—Held: Signatures and verifications are primarily meant to lend authenticity to the pleadings compliance with Rules, which help in adjudicating the claim completely and effectively, otherwise, the result may be different. Muhammad Hafeez & others v. Govt. of AJ&K & others  2022 SCR 1054 (I)
  61. —Relief beyond pleadings—no relief beyond pleadings. Held: the Court have to decide the case in light of the pleadings of the parties and cannot go beyond the same. Muhammad Faryad v. Zahoor Ahmed & others  2022 SCR 1123 (C)
  62. —Sub rule (2), rule 32, High Court Procedure Rules, 1984—Order VI, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order VII, rule 1 & 7, Civil Procedure Code, 1908—ambiguous, and vague pleadings—not show which order, petitioner wanted to set aside and what relief is solicited—Held: it is the basic duty of the petitioner that he shall have to state in the petition the exact nature of the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought. Under High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are applicable to the proceedings of writ petitions. U/r 2 of Order VI, CPC, it is also mandatory for a party that his pleadings must contain concise statement of material facts, on which a party relies for his claim. Rule 1 of Order VII of CPC also casts duty upon the petitioner/plaintiff that his plaint/petition must contain the relief which plaintiff claims. Rule 7 of Order VII, CPC also speaks that every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or as alternative. Thus, in view of these statutory provisions if a party fails to bring on record the necessary material facts on which the relief is claimed and fails to specifically state and claim the relief, the Courts are not bound to grant such relief merely on basis of verbal request. Nabeel Akram v. MDA Mirpur & others  2022 SCR 1630 (B) 2013 SCR 365 rel         
  63.   — a Court has to go by the pleadings of the parties and it has no jurisdiction to decide a case which has not been put forward by any party. Tahir Nadeem v. Lal Hussain & others 2023 SCR 275 (A) 2011 SCR 119, 2014 SCR 1608 & 2006 SCR 271 ref.
  64. — the party who fails to bring on record the necessary material for specific relief, cannot be given relief in vacuum. Azad Govt. & others versus Fiaz Ahmed & others 2023 SCR 796 (A)
error: Content is protected !!