Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Ritesh Tewari VS State of U. P. ...
2010 0 Supreme(SC) 888 : In Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, the Supreme Court held that when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law, requires substantiation by facts, the party raising the point must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition, the Court will not entertain the point. The Court emphasized that in a writ petition or counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed. This principle establishes that a party cannot plead new or relevant facts in an appeal if they were not pleaded or supported by evidence in the court below.Checking relevance for Rajasthan Pradesh V. S. Sardarshahar VS Union of India...
2010 4 Supreme 449 : In a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it – Unless the pleadings are complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. This principle was affirmed in Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, where the Supreme Court held that when a legal point requires substantiation by facts, the party raising it must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition; if facts are not pleaded or evidence in support is not annexed, the Court will not entertain the point. This establishes that where relevant facts have not been pleaded in the court below, they cannot be introduced or pleaded for the first time in appeal.Checking relevance for Harkirat Singh VS Amrinder Singh ...
Checking relevance for Narmada Bachao Andolan VS State of Madhya Pradesh...
2011 0 Supreme(SC) 518 : In a writ petition or counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed, the Court will not entertain the point. This principle establishes that where relevant facts are not pleaded in the court below, they cannot be introduced or pleaded in the appeal.Checking relevance for Bharat Singh: Dallu: Nathu Ram: Ram Phal VS State Of Haryana...
Checking relevance for Udhav Singh VS Madhav Rao Scindia...
Checking relevance for Liverpool & London S. P. & I. Asson. LTD. VS M. V. Sea Success I...
Checking relevance for Dasari Umadevi, D/o. Anjaneyulu VS State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department...
2023 0 Supreme(AP) 407 : The Supreme Court in Bharat Singh and others Vs State of Haryana and others, AIR 1988 SC 2181, held that where a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition, the Court will not entertain the point. Similarly, in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs State of M.P. and another, AIR 2011 SC 1989, the Court emphasized that ''''as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted'''', and that the object of pleadings is to ensure that litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issues, despite having merit, have not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same, as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer, which may violate principles of natural justice.Checking relevance for Raja Ram VS Ram Asrey...
2024 0 Supreme(All) 963 : The Hon''''ble Supreme Court in the case of Biraji @ Brijraji Vs. Surya Pratap and Others (Supra) has held that it is fairly well settled that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party. This principle establishes that where a party has not pleaded relevant facts in the court below, they cannot plead those facts in the appeal. Similarly, in Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (D) by LRS. Vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok (Supra) and Others, the Supreme Court observed that there is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence can be let beyond pleadings. The court emphasized that a decision cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties, reinforcing that facts not pleaded at the trial level cannot be introduced or relied upon in appeal.
