Skip to main content

A Court cannot make a new case, not made out by parties in their pleadings

In Ganesh Chandra Paul v. Maya Paul and Ors., the High Court of Calcutta held that Supreme Court in case of Sheodhari Rai & Ors. v. Suraj Prasad Singh, and a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Jugal Kishore Kundu & Ors. v. Narayan Chandra Kundu, observed that it is settled law that, a Court cannot make a new case, not made out by parties in their pleadings and, as such, in absence of any pleading or defence set up by opposite parties that, Petitioner in his application did not describe suit land correctly, Appellate Court below committed a patent error of law in dismissing Petitioner's pre-emption case under Section 8 of Act.

In present case, undisputedly neither in written statement filed before trial Judge, nor in Memorandum of Appeal filed before Appellate Court below, opposite parties set up any defence to claim of Petitioner in application under Section 8 of Act that, suit land has not been correctly described. Even from order passed by trial Judge, it is clear that neither any issue was framed, nor any argument was advanced on behalf of opposite parties with regard to maintainability of pre-emption application on ground of incorrect description of suit land. Further, from impugned order passed by Appellate Court below, it is clear that none of parties to appeal advanced any argument before appellate Court below disputing correctness of description of suit land.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Communications Made In Course Of Disciplinary Proceedings Protected By Qualified Privilege

In Manik Lal Bhowmik Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the Calcutta High Court has held that a charge sheet issued against an employee in a disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry report and the letter of dismissal are protected by qualified proceedings, the enquiry report and the letter of dismissal are protected by qualified privilege. However, in the facts of the case two questions arise on the answer of which will depend the success or failure of this suit. Firstly, has the suit been filed within the time period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963? Secondly, assuming that the answer to the first question is in favour of the plaintiff, is the defence of absolute or qualified privilege available to the defendant? Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence...
Post a Comment
Read more