Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
Ca Kriti Tandon - Petitioner
Versus
Ms Mehta Sai Das Jewelers - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 1512 of 2024
Decided On : 11-07-2024
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - EVICTION AND ARREARS OF RENT - Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972, Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The court emphasized the importance of pleadings in legal proceedings, stating that a judge cannot consider facts not included in the pleadings. It highlighted that any findings based on such facts are invalid and can lead to the annulment of the judgment. The court also noted that a counsel cannot introduce facts beyond the pleadings, and if they do, the court must reject such arguments. The court's decision was influenced by precedents that reinforce the necessity of adhering to the established legal framework regarding pleadings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent, which was rejected by the Small Cause Court. The petitioner challenged this decision in a revision, which was also rejected. The petitioner argued that the court improperly considered a related suit not included in the pleadings, leading to an erroneous judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Small Cause Court had indeed considered facts from a suit that were not part of the pleadings, which was improper. The Revisional Court acknowledged this error but still rejected the revision, which the court deemed contradictory and unsustainable.
Issues: 1. Can a counsel argue facts not included in the pleadings? 2. Can a judge consider facts outside the pleadings when making a decision? 3. Can a revisional court reject a revision despite acknowledging an error in the lower court's judgment?
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that both counsel and judges must adhere strictly to the pleadings. Any findings or arguments based on facts not included in the pleadings are invalid. The court also stated that a revisional court's judgment must align with its findings.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the Small Cause Court and the Revisional Court, remanding the case back to the Small Cause Court for a fresh decision within three months.
JUDGMENT :
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vikash Mathur along with Sri Rajnish Sahai Saxena, learned counsel for respondent.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
ii. Set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023 passed by learned Revision Court in SCC Revision No. 42 of 2022 (CA Kriti Tandon vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewelers)."
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-plaintiff has filed SCC Suit No. 72 of 2015 for eviction and arrears of rent, upon which, notices were issued and pleadings have also been exchanged. After exchange of pleadings, points of determination have been framed and ultimately suit was rejected by the SCC Court vide order dated 02.02.2022. Against the said order, petitioner-plaintiff has filed SCC Revision No. 42 of 2022, which was also rejected vide order dated 18.08.2023. Against both the orders, present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
4. Apart from many other grounds, learned counsel for petitioner has firmly argued that while deciding the point no. 4, there is reference of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 (Prakhar Tandon vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewelers). SCC Court has taken note of above referred SCC Suit and given its finding that in case, the present SCC Suit is allowed, Rent Case No. 101 of 2016 (Prakhar Tandon vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewelers) under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 (Prakhar Tandon vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewelers) shall become infructuous.
5. He firmly submitted that there is no whisper of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 in the pleadings of SCC Suit i.e. plaint, written submissions or replica. In fact, reference of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is beyond the pleadings, therefore, considering the said suit, any finding returned by the SCC Court is bad and solely on this ground, order is liable to be set aside.
6. He next submitted that there is apparent error in order dated 02.02.2022 of SCC Court, therefore, petitioner-plaintiff has filed SCC Revision with this specific ground and surprisingly, Revisional Court while deciding the revision has admitted this fact that SCC Court has taken suo moto cognizance of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021, which is bad, but rejected the SCC Revision. He further submitted that this fact has not been disputed by the counsel for respondent that facts of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is beyond pleadings, therefore, once, this is the factual situation, both the orders are bad and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Sri Shivaji Balaram Haibatti vs. Sri Avinash Maruthi Pawar; 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1109 and this Court in the matter of Girish Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P.; 2005 0 Supreme (All) 1347. He also argued about the conduct of a Judge while deciding the case and ultimately submitted that if a Judge is having any personal interest in the matter or having personal knowledge of facts, he must recuse himself from the hearing of the case. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance of Division Bench judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in the matter of Shri S.C. Kainthla vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP Nos. 2061 of 2018 alongwith CWP 2292 of 2018) decided on 12.12.2018.
7. Per contra, Sri Vikash Mathur along with Sri Rajnish Sahai Saxena, learned counsel for respondent has not disputed this fact that facts of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is not part of pleadings, but submitted that reference of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is based upon the argument made by learned counsel for respondent-defendant, therefore, it cannot be said that SCC Court has taken suo moto cognizance. He firmly submitted that the said issue was not
A court cannot consider or base its findings on facts not included in the pleadings, and any judgment made on such grounds is invalid.
The revisional court can correct trial court findings based on legal misinterpretation, especially when admissions negate the need for further proof.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific pleadings and compliance with statutory requirements in challenging the maintainability of a suit and other related issu....
The Court affirmed that a Revisional Court may not remand a case if sufficient evidence exists to decide the matter, and the dismissal of a prior suit does not invoke res judicata if not decided on m....
Point of Law - By amendment in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of small causes court was increased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lakh.
(1) Res Judicata – Whether suit is barred by any law must be determined from statements in plaint and it is not open to decide issue on the basis of any other material including written statement in ....
Categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment.
The High Court upheld the trial court's rejection of an amendment to the written statement, affirming that such amendments are allowed only under specific conditions and do not alter the nature of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to a Small Cause Court (SCC) suit and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, empha....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
