SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(Ori) 29

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra, J.
KHALI - Appellant
Versus
SADHABA BEWA - Respondent
Civil Revn.  113  Of  1966
Decided On : JULY 29, 1966

Advocates Appeared:
RAJENDRA MOHANTY

The duty of the judge is not to sympathize with the plaintiff for discrepancies between the evidence and the pleadings, but to either reject the evidence if it does not align with the pleadings or reconcile the conflict without suggesting an amendment.

Headnote:

Amendment - Jurisdiction - The court held that the judge's order allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint was illegal and without jurisdiction, as it was not the duty of the judge to sympathize with the plaintiff for the conflict between the pleadings and the evidence. The judge should have either rejected the evidence if it did not align with the pleadings or reconciled the conflict without suggesting an amendment.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint after the learned Munsif passed an order allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint due to discrepancies between the evidence and the pleadings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the order of the learned Munsif allowing the amendment to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, as it was not the duty of the judge to sympathize with the plaintiff for the conflict between the pleadings and the evidence.

Issues: The main issue was the legality and jurisdiction of the judge's order allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint due to discrepancies between the evidence and the pleadings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it was not the duty of the judge to sympathize with the plaintiff for the conflict between the pleadings and the evidence. The judge should have either rejected the evidence if it did not align with the pleadings or reconciled the conflict without suggesting an amendment.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision was allowed, and the order of the learned Munsif allowing the amendment was set aside. The judge was directed to proceed to deliver judgment on the basis of the materials already on record.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) ON 24-2-66 arguments in the suit were heard and the case was posted for judgment to 3-3-66. On that day the learned Munsif passed a queer and unprecedental order, which may be extracted:

"after going through the pleadings and the evidence adduced. I find that the evidence led by the plaintiff does not speak in terms of the plaint allegations. Such variation is due to the fact that after the institution of the suit some more circumstances have been cropped up. . . . . Therefore in order to read the evidence in terms of pleadings. I feel that it would he just and necessary to give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint. In the interest of justice and in order to keep the evidence In par with the pleadings, the plaintiff is given an opportunity to amend his plaint. "

In accordance with the direction of the learned Munsif, plaintiff filed an application for amendment which was opposed. Ultimately the amendment was allowed on 25-3-1966. It is against this order the Civil Revision has been filed.

( 2 ) THE order of the learned Munsif is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. A judge hardly acts as a lawyer. It was not a part of the duty of the learned Munsif to have sympathy for the plaintiff for the conflict arising between the pleadings and the evidence If the evidence is not in consonance with the pleadings, it may be thrown out. It is open to the Judge also to accept the evidence if the conflict is not of a serious nature and both can be reconciled. But in no circumstance an amendment should be suggested and allowed by a Judge, merely because evidence and the pleadings do not tally. The learned Munsif failed to realise that by the amendment allowed a pew trial would begin on various new issues regarding existence of right of easement of a character not already pleaded.

( 3 ) IN the result, the Civil Revision is allowed and the order of the learned Munsif allowing amendment is set aside. He must now proceed to deliver judgment on the basis of the materials already on record. If he so chooses, he may hear the learned Advocates for the parties and then proceed to deliver judgment. As there is no appearance for the opposite parties, there will be no order for costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top