Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Contrary Pledings - Violation of Legal Provisions The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, along with NCTE rules and regulations, was found to be contrary to the Education Act and in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. A specific clause (Clause 10 of G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 16.4.2011) proposing to give 20% weightage to TET scores in teacher recruitment was declared illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. The courts directed its striking down. ["2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9439"]
Obligation to Support Pleadings Courts emphasized that parties are obliged to stand by and sustain their pleadings. Failure to do so can lead to the dismissal of suits or withdrawal with liberty to refile. This principle was reiterated in multiple cases, underscoring the importance of consistent pleadings for legal proceedings. ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3473"], ["A.SABARIVASAN Vs V. CHANDRA LEKHA - Madras"], ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3769"], ["2022 0 Supreme(MP) 364"], ["
Trilochansingh vs Indrajeet Kaur - Madhya Pradesh
"]Suit Abandonment Due to Lack of Pledings and Documents Several cases indicated that suits are likely to fail if pleadings and necessary documents are absent. Accordingly, courts permitted withdrawal of suits with liberty to refile, recognizing the procedural necessity of proper pleadings for the sustenance of legal actions. ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3769"], ["2022 0 Supreme(MP) 364"], ["
Trilochansingh vs Indrajeet Kaur - Madhya Pradesh
"]Criminal Proceedings and Parity of Accused The applicant, accused in a theft case, was found to have parity with co-accused, with evidence including recovery of stolen items. The applicant has been in custody since 17.01.2023, and the case details suggest considerations of fairness and parity in criminal proceedings. ["2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 53305"]
Limitation and Revision in Criminal Cases A revision application filed before the expiry of the limitation period (before 28.2.2022) was noted, but extraneous reasons were applied to dismiss it. Proper consideration within limitation was emphasized, though the court applied some irregular reasoning. ["2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4919"]
Strickland Standard in Habeas Corpus and Appellate Review The courts discussed the application of the Strickland two-pronged test (performance deficiency and resulting prejudice) in habeas corpus cases. It was clarified that courts must find both elements to grant relief. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals' evaluation was found to be consistent with Strickland, and its decision was not contrary to federal law. The analysis underscores the deference courts give to state court judgments and the strict criteria for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. ["2021 Supreme(US)(ca7) 297"], ["2021 Supreme(US)(ca7) 204"]
Analysis and Conclusion:The sources collectively highlight that courts uphold legal principles requiring parties to support pleadings, recognize the invalidity of arbitrary policies (such as the 20% TET score weightage), and apply established legal standards like Strickland diligently. Courts tend to strike down laws or clauses that violate constitutional or statutory provisions and emphasize procedural correctness, including timely filings and proper pleadings. The judicial approach balances adherence to legal standards with fairness in criminal proceedings, ensuring that decisions are grounded in law and procedural regularity.
In , form the foundation of a case, outlining the facts and issues in dispute. But what happens when a party's contain contradictions or inconsistencies? A common question arises: Contrary Struck Out—can courts simply erase them? This is a critical issue under Indian civil procedure, governed primarily by (CPC). While courts have the power to strike out such , they exercise it with extreme caution to avoid prejudicing a party's right to a . This blog explores the legal principles, key criteria, judicial approach, and practical recommendations, drawing from landmark cases and statutory provisions.
Note: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
empowers courts to strike out or amend any pleading at any stage of proceedings if it is:- - - - - , or- An
This power is described as and must be used sparingly. As held in key judgments, striking out can deprive parties of their defense, causing serious prejudice. 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 24 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681 Courts emphasize that this is not a routine tool but reserved for clear abuses. 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681
Contrary —those that are internally inconsistent or contradictory—do not automatically qualify for striking out. Courts assess whether they meet the specific criteria under Order VI Rule 16. For instance:- or : If they do not aid dispute resolution and merely clutter the record. 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1476 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 456- , , or abusive: intended to delay trials or mislead the court. 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1662
However, mere contradiction is insufficient. Contradictions or inconsistencies do not automatically warrant striking out unless they are or or constitute an abuse of process. 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1476 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681 Instead, such issues are typically resolved through during trial, allowing the truth to emerge. 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1662 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1032
In one High Court matter, it was observed: Let the party be allowed to stand by the , and it is their obligations to sustain their pledings.
This underscores that parties must defend their averments, rather than having them preemptively discarded.
Indian courts, including the and , adopt a restrained stance:- The power is exercised only when statutory criteria are fully met, with great caution. 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1476- should be construed strictly in certain cases, like , but contradictions are tested via evidence, not struck out outright. 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1662 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1032- Relevance is key: If raise bona fide issues, they survive to trial. 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1662
This mirrors broader judicial philosophy. For example, in criminal contexts involving inconsistencies, courts demand cogent and convincing evidence with strick standards of proof, refusing convictions on presumptions alone, especially with contradictory statements like . 2008 0 Supreme(Guj) 398 Similarly, unreliable evidence due to inconsistencies, such as delayed medical exams creating suspicion of afterthought, leads to acquittals for failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1315
In election disputes, face rigorous scrutiny. Courts avoid striking out solely for contradictions, preferring to test veracity. 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1662 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1032
While Order VI Rule 16 applies to civil suits, analogous principles appear in criminal law. In rape and murder appeals, inconsistent without corroboration render them unreliable: are not reliable or trustworthy due to inconsistency amongst there, they do not inspire any confidence. 2008 0 Supreme(Guj) 398 Courts quashed convictions, emphasizing that inconsistencies must be resolved at trial, not dismissed summarily.
In POCSO cases, prosecution failures due to inconsistent versions or procedural lapses (e.g., delayed medical exams) highlight the need for strict proof, akin to civil pleading standards. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1315
Even in tax matters, strict interpretation avoids over-reliance on single principles for inconsistencies. 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 276 This reinforces the futility of rigid rules without factual context.
Courts repeatedly caution against overuse:- No striking out based solely on contradiction unless or abusive. 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681- Relevant, arguable contradictions proceed to trial. 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1662- Discretion demands caution; otherwise, it prejudices fair hearings. 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 203
As noted in English precedents referenced in Indian cases, justice requires clear reasons: It has been held that justice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost. 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2668 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 3229
To navigate this area effectively:- Evaluate before moving to strike: Confirm if are truly , , etc. Mere inconsistency rarely suffices.- Prefer : Test contradictions in evidence rather than seeking premature striking out.- Draft carefully: Ensure are clear and consistent to preempt challenges.- For courts: Reserve striking out for egregious cases meeting Order VI Rule 16 thresholds.
Contrary may be struck out under if , , , , , or abusive—but rarely just for being contradictory. Courts wield this power sparingly, prioritizing trial processes like to uphold fairness. Precedents like 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681, 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 24, and others affirm: The power to strike out is and should be exercised sparingly. 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 203
Summary: Inconsistencies invite scrutiny but not automatic erasure. Parties must sustain their , and courts ensure justice through evidence, not shortcuts. Understanding these nuances can prevent procedural pitfalls and strengthen your litigation strategy.
For deeper insights into specific cases, review references such as:1. 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1476: Scope and caution in striking out.2. 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 24: Statutory basis and exceptional nature.3. 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1681: Principles on proper .4. 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1662: Caution in affidavits/evidence.5. 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1032: Testing via .
Stay informed, draft wisely, and litigate effectively!
#PleadingsCPC #IndianLaw #CourtProcedure
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act , 2009 and the Rules and Regulations of the National Council for Teacher Education and contrary to the Education Act and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently strick down the said Clause from the above ... direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Clause 10 of G.O.Ms.No.51 School Education (Se.Genl.II) Department, dated 16.4.2011, whe....
Let the party be allowed to stand by the pleadings, and it is their obligations to sustain their pledings. 6.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not apply a rule that contradicts Strick- land so its evaluation of counsel’s performance under Strick- land’s first prong was not contrary to clearly established fed- eral law. ... Again, we are not convinced that this shows that the state court’s decision was contrary to Strickland. ... The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied the principles of Strick- land to ....
Let the party be allowed to stand by the pleadings, and it is their obligations to sustain their pledings. 6.
The suit is hence likely to fail on account of such absence of pledings and documents hence there was sufficient ground for allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit as prayed for. Reliance has been placed by him on the V.
The suit is hence likely to fail on account of such absence of pledings and documents hence there was sufficient ground for allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit as prayed for.
The suit is hence likely to fail on account of such absence of pledings and documents hence there was sufficient ground for allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a p style="text-align: center
The allegations against the applicant is only that he was wondering about theft and a torch and strick also recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The present applicant is having complete parity with the co-accused. The applicant is in custody since 17.01.2023.
Judicial Magistrate First Class was presented on 22.10.2021 which was prior to the extended period of limitation i.e. 28.2.2022, and therefore the revision shoul have been considered within limitation though no ground thereof was taken in the application, but on extraneous reasons applying the strick
“Under Strick‐ land’s familiar two‐pronged standard,” Thill “must show both that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result.” Carter v. Douma, 796 F.3d 726, 735 (7th Cir. 2015). ... To succeed, Thill must show that the state court’s decision was “‘substantially different’ from or ‘opposite to’” the prejudice standard articulated in Strick‐ land. Allen v. Chandler, 555 F.3d 596, 601 (7th Cir. 2009). ... That the state court’....
Act, for accepting the case of the prosecution strick proof is necessary. Further submission of the appellant's counsel is since the accused has charged under the provisions of Special Act ie., POCSO According to him, the prosecution has not proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
In English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd. [(2002) 1 WLR 2409]. The House of Lords in Cullen v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [(2003) 1 WLR 1763], Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Steyn, on the requirement of reason held: (WLR p. 1769, para 7) It has been held that justice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost.
The House of Lords in Cullen v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [(2003) 1 WLR 1763], Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Steyn, on the requirement of reason held: (WLR p. 1769, para 7) In English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd. [(2002) 1 WLR 2409]. It has been held that justice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost.
"In Regent Oil Co. Ltd. v. Strick (Inspector of Taxes) [1966] After review of relevant English cases and judgment of the Apex Court, following was observed at page 385 and 386 : AC 295, Lord Reid emphasised the futility of a strict application of and exclusive dependence on any single principle in the search for the true position and pointed out the difficulty arising from taking too literally the general statements made in earlier cases and seeking to apply them to a differe....
There must be cogent and convincing evidence with strick standards of proof. The appellants may not be convicted and sentenced by the Court only on the basis of presumption, especially when, there are more than one dying declaration and when there is inconsistency between the dying declarations coupled with the fact that there is no corroboration to the dying declarations. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that in fact, the Investigating Officer has not broug....
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
