Whether a claim can be thrown out on the ground that plaint is not properly drafted?

I would be slow to throw out a claim on a mere techni- cality of pleading when the substance of the thing is there and no prejudice is caused to the other side, however clum- sily or inartistically the plaint may be worded. In any event, it is always open to a court to give a plaintiff such general or other relief as it deems just to the same extent as if it had been asked for, provided that occasions no prejudice to the other side beyond what can be compensated for in costs.

Supreme Court of India

Kidar Lall Seal And Another vs Hari Lall Seal on 18 December, 1951

Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 47, 1952 SCR 179

Bench: Bose, Vivian

Print Page

Golden rules for interpretation of pleading

The trial Court in fact elaborately dealt with this aspect of the case by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kedar Lal Seal and another vs. Hari Lal Seal, reported in MANU/SC/0064/1951 : AIR 1952 SC 47 and Madan Gopal Kanodia vs. Mamraj Maniram and others, reported in MANU/SC/0042/1976 : AIR 1976 SC 461 when it held that the pleadings could not be interpreted in a pedantic and meticulous manner so as to defeat the genuine claims on trivial grounds. The trial Court followed the law laid down in the case of Kedarlal (supra) that the Court should be slow to throw out a claim on a mere technicality of pleadings when substance of things is there and no prejudice would be caused to the other side, however, clumsily or inartistically the plaint may be worded. The trial Court also placed its reliance upon the observations by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hariba Babu Babar and Anr. vs. Appasaheb Dadu Nagargoje, reported in MANU/MH/0687/2007: 2007 (5) Mh.L.J. 260 (para. 14), that forgathering the true spirit behind a plea, it should be read as a whole and to test whether the plaintiff has performed his obligation, one has to see the pith and substance of the plea. These findings of the trial Court have also been confirmed by first appellate Court. Findings of both these Courts are consistent with settled law of pleadings and requirements of Section 16(c) of the Act seen in the light of its explanation (ii). Thus, I see no reason to take a different view in the matter. Besides, these findings are based upon the appreciation of evidence available on record. They are not the result of non-consideration of any relevant evidence or consideration of any evidence not admissible in law. They, therefore, cannot be termed as perverse and as such leave no scope for this Court to make any interference with them. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant made in this behalf, therefore, cannot be accepted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL No.464 OF 2012
Shaligram s/o. Vitthalrao Sawant,

...VERSUS...
Ramesh s/o. Bhagwan Gawande,

CORAM :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.
  
DATE    :  28   NOVEMBER, 2013.
Citation; 2014(3) ALLMR235,2014(3)MhLj704

Print Page