Case Name : Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal Case Reference: (2008) 17 SCC 491 Case Number: CA Nos. 5798-5799/2008 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 02 Coram: RV Raveendran (Author), Lokeshwar Singh Panta Date: 23.09.2008
High Court cannot grant relief of injunction assuming that plaintiffs had easementary right. In absence of pleadings and an opportunity to defendant to deny such claim, High Court could not have granted relief. At best, liberty to file separate suit.
(Second Appeal)
Context in which deficiency in, or absence of pleadings can be ignored
Bhagwati Prasad vs. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735
The above, a Constitution Bench (CB) recognised that generally, in the absence of pleading, evidence (if any) cannot be considered. That parties cannot be permitted to travel beyond their pleadings and that all necessary and material facts must be pleaded by the party. The adversary party must know the case it has to meet. Fair trial, no party must be taken by surprise.
The main question is whether, in substance, the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they go to trial.
Para 23 : It is fundamental that in a civil suit, relief must be granted in reference to prayers made in the pleadings.
See also: CPC - Order VI rule 1 CPC - Section 100