Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Relief under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC - Specificity of Relief Claimed The general principle is that no relief can be granted unless it is specifically averred in the plaint as per Order 7 Rule 7 CPC. The rule emphasizes that every plaint should state clearly the relief sought, and courts are generally bound by the reliefs claimed in the pleadings. However, courts have the power to mold reliefs within the scope of the pleadings if such reliefs are just and proper, even if not explicitly claimed, provided the relief falls within the ambit of the pleadings or is within the court's jurisdiction ["KASHI PRASAD VS BANSHIDHAR - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kashi Prasad VS Banshidhar - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Gopal VS Raghuveer - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2141"].Analysis and Conclusion: Courts cannot grant reliefs not pleaded unless they are within the permissible scope of Order 7 Rule 7, which allows courts to grant any relief that is just and within the scope of the pleadings. The relief must be specifically pleaded; otherwise, the court may refuse to grant it, unless it is a consequential or incidental relief that the law permits to be granted in the interest of justice ["KASHI PRASAD VS BANSHIDHAR - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kashi Prasad VS Banshidhar - Madhya Pradesh"].
Power of Courts to Grant Reliefs Not Specifically Claimed Under Order 7 Rule 7, courts have inherent power to grant reliefs that are just and proper, even if not explicitly claimed in the plaint, provided such relief is within the scope of the pleadings and the facts proved. This includes molding reliefs to do complete justice, but such reliefs must not extend beyond what is permissible under the law or the pleadings ["KASHI PRASAD VS BANSHIDHAR - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kashi Prasad VS Banshidhar - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Nagendra Nath Tiwari VS Bhanu Pratap Sinha - Current Civil Cases"].Analysis and Conclusion: The courts can exercise their discretion to grant reliefs beyond those specifically claimed, but only within the bounds of justice and the pleadings. Reliefs larger than claimed cannot be granted unless they are incidental or consequential, and courts should exercise sound judgment to avoid granting reliefs not supported by the pleadings ["KASHI PRASAD VS BANSHIDHAR - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Gopal VS Raghuveer - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2141"].
Requirement of Specific Averments for Certain Reliefs Certain reliefs, such as those involving specific performance, possession, or declarations, require specific averments in the plaint. For example, a suit for specific performance must state that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and absence of such averments can be a ground for dismissal ["Prem Raj VS D. L. F. Housing And Construction Private LTD. - 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 100"], ["Gopal Ch. Saha S/o Chandra Kumar Saha VS Mustt. Ayeshya Khatun - Gauhati"]. Similarly, reliefs like possession or declaration must be supported by clear pleadings, and courts cannot grant reliefs based on vague or unpleaded claims ["Gopal Ch. Saha S/o Chandra Kumar Saha VS Mustt. Ayeshya Khatun - Gauhati"], ["Nagendra Nath Tiwari VS Bhanu Pratap Sinha - Current Civil Cases"].Analysis and Conclusion: Precise averments are necessary for the court to grant specific reliefs. If such averments are missing, courts are justified in refusing relief, as the law requires the relief to be pleaded explicitly. This ensures that parties are aware of the scope of litigation and that reliefs are granted based on clear pleadings ["Prem Raj VS D. L. F. Housing And Construction Private LTD. - 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 100"], ["Gopal Ch. Saha S/o Chandra Kumar Saha VS Mustt. Ayeshya Khatun - Gauhati"].
Relief Moulding and Court's Discretion While Order 7 Rule 7 CPC provides that reliefs should be within the scope of the pleadings, courts have the discretion to mould reliefs to do complete justice, provided such reliefs are just and within the law. This includes granting lesser reliefs if larger reliefs are not supported by pleadings ["Nagendra Nath Tiwari VS Bhanu Pratap Sinha - Current Civil Cases"].Analysis and Conclusion: Courts may exercise their power to grant reliefs within the limits of justice, even if the relief is not specifically claimed, but only if it does not violate statutory provisions or principles of law. The power to mold reliefs is thus a safeguard to prevent miscarriage of justice, but it must be exercised judiciously ["Nagendra Nath Tiwari VS Bhanu Pratap Sinha - Current Civil Cases"].
Summary:Order 7 Rule 7 CPC mandates that reliefs must generally be specifically pleaded; however, courts possess the inherent power to grant appropriate reliefs within the scope of pleadings and in the interest of justice. Reliefs larger than those claimed are typically not permissible unless they are incidental, consequential, or within the court's discretion to mold, provided such reliefs are just, proper, and supported by the pleadings ["KASHI PRASAD VS BANSHIDHAR - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kashi Prasad VS Banshidhar - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Gopal VS Raghuveer - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2141"], ["Nagendra Nath Tiwari VS Bhanu Pratap Sinha - Current Civil Cases"].
References:- ["KASHI PRASAD VS BANSHIDHAR - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Kashi Prasad VS Banshidhar - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Gopal VS Raghuveer - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2141"]- ["Prem Raj VS D. L. F. Housing And Construction Private LTD. - 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 100"]- ["Gopal Ch. Saha S/o Chandra Kumar Saha VS Mustt. Ayeshya Khatun - Gauhati"]- ["Nagendra Nath Tiwari VS Bhanu Pratap Sinha - Current Civil Cases"]
In civil litigation under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, plaintiffs must carefully draft their plaints to claim specific reliefs. A common misconception arises: no relief can be granted under Order 7 Rule 7 until the plaintiff have made such averment for relief. Is this accurate? This blog post demystifies Order 7 Rule 7, explaining when courts can mould or grant general relief even without explicit prayers, backed by judicial precedents.
Whether you're a litigant, lawyer, or curious reader, understanding this provision can prevent procedural pitfalls and ensure access to justice. We'll break down the rule, its requirements, exceptions, and limitations.
Order 7 Rule 7 CPC does not bar all relief until specific averments are made. It mandates that plaints state specific reliefs claimed (simply or alternatively), but explicitly allows courts to grant general or other relief as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. This discretionary power promotes complete justice without forcing multiplicity of suits.
However, this is not unlimited. Relief must align with pleaded facts, not exceed claims, avoid prejudice, and stay within legal bounds. Courts cannot grant inconsistent, larger, or barred reliefs on unpleaded cases unless admitted by defendants. (Order 7 Rule 7 CPC mandates that specific reliefs claimed by the plaintiff must be stated explicitly in the plaint... but explicitly permits courts to grant general or other relief as justice requires Gopalakrishna Pillai VS Meenakshi Ayal - 1966 0 Supreme(SC) 123Prem Raj VS D. L. F. Housing And Construction Private LTD. - 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 100)
Order 7 Rule 7 insists on precision for certain claims:
Relief must match pleaded facts and proof. (Relief under O7 R7 must be consistent with pleading and proof Ganesh Shet VS C. S. G. K. Setty - 1998 5 Supreme 56)
Failure here surprises defendants, leading to denial.
The rule's exception is powerful: courts mould reliefs for justice.
Other cases affirm this. For instance, even without categorical prayer, courts grant appropriate relief per facts. (Order VII Rule 7... even if a general or other relief is not being categorically sought for in the plaint, such relief can always be granted by the Court by moulding the relief On the death of Bhabani Prasad Rabha VS Dayabati Rabha - 2015 Supreme(Gau) 688)
In a land dispute, courts remanded for moulding possession to 50% share despite full ejectment prayer, as facts supported it. (under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court is vested with the power to grant proper relief according to the attending facts Bhabani Prasad Rabha VS Dayabati Rabha and Ors. - 2015 Supreme(Gau) 1320)
Uncontested averments trigger relief via Order 8 Rule 5. (the averment of the plaintiff... was not contested by the defendants and therefore... relief should have been granted on that basis. Merely because an erroneous relief was sought, that need not result in non-suiting the plaintiff in toto MONISA @ OTCHAMMAL (MINOR) vs MAYAKKAL - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 34386)
Power isn't absolute:
In election petitions, specific reliefs are mandatory; unclaimed ones can't be granted later. (even in the election petition, the relief, which is claimed, has to be specific and as per Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, if a particular relief is not claimed specifically, the Court cannot later on... grant such relief Karan Sharma vs Raghunath Agarwal - 2021 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 996)
Alternative reliefs inconsistent with originals are barred. (Court has no power to grant alternative relief which was not sought for. Even when the Court has power... inconsistent with the original relief... cannot be allowed New India Assurance Company Limited VS Ramakrishna Vasu Shetty - 2010 Supreme(Kar) 272)
Family settlements may justify limited relief like rentals. (In view of Order 7 rule 7 CPC, relief to the said extent can be granted Ranvir Dewan VS Rashmi Khanna - 2013 Supreme(Del) 1339)
Order 7 Rule 7 balances specificity with flexibility, enabling justice via moulding while curbing abuse. The notion that no relief can be granted without averments is overstated—general reliefs are viable under conditions.
Key Takeaways:- Specific reliefs: Always plead explicitly.- General reliefs: Possible if consistent and just.- Avoid: Larger, barred, or prejudicial claims.
This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
7, Rule 7 of CPC? ... The declaratory decrees can well be made by the Courts under the general provisions of CPC as Section 9 or Order 7 Rule 7 of Code. The exercise of jurisdiction to grant such declaratory reliefs beyond the terms of that Section shall depend upon the facts of each case. ... Rajubai reported in 1979 MPLJ (SN) 14, where the plaintiffs had sued for declaration of exclusive title while the facts proved entitling the plaintiffs only to....
7, Rule 7 CPC? ... Mangaram Radheshyam, 1979 JLJ 151, that the Courts' power to grant declaratory decrees is not limited to the terms of section 34 of Specific Relief Act. The declaratory decrees can well be made by the Courts under the general provisions of CPC as section 9 or Order 7, Rule 7 of Code. ... Rajubai, 1979 MPLJ 14, where the plaintiffs had sued for declaration of exclusive title while the facts proved entitling the pla....
The first appellate Court failed to note that the averment of the plaintiff as regards the character of “A” schedule was not contested by the defendants and therefore, in view of Order 8 Rule 5 of C.P.C., relief should have been granted on that basis. ... Merely because an erroneous relief was sought, that need not result in non-suiting the plaintiff in toto. While it is not open to the Court to grant a larger relief, if otherwise the case is made ou....
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 14 Rule 5, Order 7 Rule 7 - Election petition - Improper rejection of nominations - Appellant ... Learned counsel further submitted that even in the election petition, the relief, which is claimed, has to be specific and as per Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, if a particular relief is not claimed specifically, the Court cannot later on while deciding the main controversy, can grant su....
Learned counsel further submitted that even in the election petition, the relief, which is claimed, has to be specific and as per Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, if a particular relief is not claimed specifically, the Court cannot later on while deciding the main controversy, can grant such relief. ... Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has not kept in mind the object of Order 5 Rule 14 CPC, while passing the order....
The first appellate Court failed to note that the averment of the plaintiff as regards the character of “A” schedule was not contested by the defendants and therefore, in view of Order 8 Rule 5 of C.P.C., relief should have been granted on that basis. ... Merely because an erroneous relief was sought, that need not result in non-suiting the plaintiff in toto. While it is not open to the Court to grant a larger relief, if otherwise the case is made ou....
The first appellate Court failed to note that the averment of the plaintiff as regards the character of “A” schedule was not contested by the defendants and therefore, in view of Order 8 Rule 5 of C.P.C., relief should have been granted on that basis. ... Merely because an erroneous relief was sought, that need not result in non-suiting the plaintiff in toto. While it is not open to the Court to grant a larger relief, if otherwise the case is made ou....
, which is claimed, has to be specific and as per Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, if a particular relief is not claimed specifically, dated 31.07.2021. ... , has to consider the relief claimed in the petition. ... is not found on the pleadings, the same should not be granted. ... (7 of 7) p style="position:absolute;white-space
Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Section 37 and 35 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7, Rule 7, Section 115 ... In the present case, no such averment is made in the plaint. ... was illegal and void It is true that under Order 7, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code it is open to a plaintiff to pray for inconsistent reliefs But it must be shown by the plaintiff that each of such pleas is maintainable So far as the r....
The Order 7 Rule 7 is reproduced as under:- lays down that it shall not be necessary to ask for general by the courts below, if there is averment in the plaint “7. ... And the same rule shall apply to any relief p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:558pt;left:215pt"
Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that even if a general or other relief is not being categorically sought for in the plaint, such relief can always be granted by the Court by moulding the relief as if it has been prayed for. If the relief claimed in the plaint is not wholly sufficient or appropriate, under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court is vested with the power to grant proper relief according to the attending facts and circumstances of the case.
If the relief claimed in the plaint is not wholly sufficient or appropriate, under Order VII Rule 7of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court is vested with the power to grant proper relief according to the attending facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that even if a general or other relief is not being categorically sought for in the plaint, such relief can always be granted by the Court by moulding the relief as if it has been prayed for.
In view of Order 7 rule 7 CPC, relief to the said extent can be granted to plaintiff No. 2. This is how the defendants No. 1 and 2 have understood the family settlement, especially clause five of the settlement.
In labour matters this principle has specifically been made applicable by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Brass Ware Corporation Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, A.I.R. A.I.R. 2006 SC 586. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances particularly the fact that bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court on the ground that matter was cognizable by labour court was not specifically raised by the petitioner employer before the courts below I consider it appropriate to award some reasonable damages/compensation to the workman. Under Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. the relief which is not asked for may be granted....
Basudeo Prasad and another, 2002 SC 135, to support the contention that under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permission is granted to a lesser relief if the plaintiff has not made out a case for the grant of a larger relief. Shivawwa, AIR 1989 KAR. 45, to contend that under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relief can be granted even in the absence of a specific prayer for such relief and that it would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
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
