Whether party can be permitted to set up new case or new cause of action by amendment of plaint?

The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neale. 19 Q.B.D. 394 But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation: see Charan Das v. Amir Khan L.R. 47 IndAp 255 and L. J. Leach and Company Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. MANU/SC/0009/1957 : [1957]1SCR438

8. The Principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes [Cropper v. Smith] and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil.

9. The expression cause of action in the present context does not mean very fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed as was said in Cooke v. Gill in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property corporation Ltd. and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile.

The words new case have been under stood to mean new set of ideas : Dornan v. J. W. Ellis and Co. Ltd. This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1963

Decided On: 10.09.1965

A.K. Gupta and Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sarkar, Raghubar Dayal and V. Ramaswami, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1967 SC 96.

The Judgment of Sarkar and Ramaswami JJ. was delivered by Sarkar J. Raghubar Dayal J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.

Print Page

Whether person concealing material facts can seek assistance of Court?

 The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for alleged bona fide requirement of Petitioner 1 only. The discussion above, makes crystal clear that Petitioner 1 has concealed the material fact that his son named Atul owns a flat at Pooja Apartments, Patparganj, New Delhi in pleadings. Petitioner 1 has also sought eviction of the respondent tenant for residential requirements of his said son Atul and his family members. In my considered opinion, Petitioner 1 is guilty of concealment of residential accommodation owned by his son at Pooja Apartments, Patparganj, Delhi. It is well-settled law that a person concealing the material fact cannot seek the assistance of the Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7231 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4247 of 2001)

Decided On: 16.10.2001

 Kishan Chand Vs. Jagdish Pershad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
U.C. Banerjee and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Citation: (2003) 9 SCC 151

Print Page

Whether plaint can be rejected if single material fact is omitted?

In the light of the afore-stated legal position,
let us examine the averments made in the plaint
so as to find out whether the plaint discloses
the cause of action, and whether the suit is
barred under any law as contemplated in Clause
(a) and Clause (d) respectively of Rule 11 of
Order VII. At this juncture, it would be also

apposite to mention that Order VI Rule 2 requires
that every pleadings shall contain, and contain
only a statement in concise form and of material
facts on which the party pleading relies for his
claim or defence as the case may be, but not the
evidence by which they are to be proved. Thus,
though the pleadings must contain a statement in
concise form of material facts, it need not
contain the evidence by which they are to be
proved. At this juncture, it would be also
relevant to mention that Order VII Rule 1 states
as to what particulars should be contained in the
plaint, and as per Clause (e) of the said Rule,
the plaint must contain the facts constituting
the cause of action, and when it arose. As per
Clause (f) thereof, the plaint also must contain
the facts showing that the Court has
jurisdiction. The distinction between “material
facts” and “particulars” has been succinctly
described by the Supreme Court in case of Sopan
Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity
Commissioner and Ors. (supra). Paragraph 20
thereof reads as under:-
“20. There   is   distinction   between   ’material
facts’   and   ’particulars’.   The   words   ’material
facts’ show that the facts necessary to formulate
a   complete   cause   of   action   must   be  stated.
Omission   of   a  single   material   fact   leads   to  an
incomplete cause of action and the statement or
plaint   becomes   bad.   The   distinction   which   has
been   made   between   ’material   facts’   and
’particulars’ was brought by Scott, L.J. in Bruce
v.   Odhams   Press   Ltd.   (1936)   1   KB   697   in   the
following passage :

The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the
statement   of   claim   must   state   the   material
facts.   The   word   "material"   means   necessary
for   the   purpose   of   formulating   a   complete
cause of action; and if any one "material"
statement is omitted, the statement of claim
is   bad;   it   is   "demurrable"   in   the   old
phraseology, and in the new is liable to be
"struck out" under R.S.C. Order XXV, Rule 4
(see   Philipps   v.   Philipps   ((1878)   4   QBD
127)); or "a further and better statement of
claim" may be ordered under Rule 7. 
The   function   of   "particulars"   under   Rule   6
is quite different. They are not to be used
in   order   to   fill   material   gaps   in   a
demurrable   statement   of   claim   ­   gaps   which
ought   to   have   been   filled   by   appropriate
statements   of   the   various   material   facts
which   together   constitute   the   plaintiff’s
cause of action. The use of particulars is
intended   to   meet   a   further   and   quite
separate requirement of pleading, imposed in
fairness and justice to the defendant. Their
function   is   to   fill   in   the   picture   of   the
plaintiff’s cause of action with information
sufficiently   detailed   to   put   the   defendant
on his guard as to the case he had to meet
and to enable him to prepare for trial. 
The dictum of Scott, L.J. in Bruce case (supra)
has  been quoted  with approval by this  Court  in
Samant   N.   Balkrishna   v.   George   Fernandez   (1969
(3)   SCC   238),   and   the   distinction   between
"material   facts"   and   "particulars"   was   brought
out in the following terms:
The   word   ’material’   shows   that   the   facts
necessary   to   formulate   a   complete   cause   of
action must be stated. Omission of a single
material   fact   leads   to   an   incomplete   cause
of action and the statement of claim becomes
bad.   The   function   of   particulars   is   to
present   as   full   a   picture   of   the   cause   of
action   with   such   further   information   in
detail   as   to   make   the   opposite   party

understand the case he will have to meet.
Rule   11   of   Order   VII   lays   down   an   independent
remedy   made   available   to   the   defendant   to
challenge the maintainability of the suit itself,
irrespective of his right to contest the same on
merits. The law ostensibly does not contemplate
at any stage when the objections can be raised,
and also does not say in express terms about the
filing of a written statement. Instead, the word
’shall’ is used clearly implying thereby that it
casts   a   duty   on   the   Court   to   perform   its
obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same
is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the
four   clauses   of   Rule   11,   even   without
intervention   of   the   defendant.   In   any   event,
rejection  of  the  plaint under Rule  11  does  not
preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh
plaint in terms of Rule 13.”
11.From the afore-stated provisions contained in
Order VI Rule 2 and Order VII Rule 1 it clearly
emerges that the pleadings i.e. the plaint in the
instant case, must state the material facts
constituting the cause of action and as to when
it arose, and omission of a single material fact
leads to an incomplete cause of action, and the
plaint becomes bad. Such infirmity may attract
Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII. The word
“shall” used in Order VII Rule 11 also cast duty
on the Court to reject the plaint when it is hit
by any of the clauses mentioned in Rule 11.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 of 2015

H D F C BANK LIMITED.VASHAPURA MINECHEM LIMITED..

Print Page

Whether truth or otherwise of averments made in petition is material for ascertaining territorial jurisdiction of high court?

In   determining   the   objection   of   lack   of   territorial
jurisdiction this Court has to take into consideration the facts pleaded
in support of the cause of action  albit  without embarking upon an
enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. It is a
settled law that question of territorial jurisdiction needs to be decided
on the facts pleaded in the petition and the truth or otherwise of the
averments made in the petition would be immaterial.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2016.
Shri Asif S/o. Shaukat Qureshi,
V
 The State of Maharashtra,


CORAM  :   B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED :  22/12/2016.
Citation: 2017(2) MHLJ 178
Read full judgment: click here

Print Page

How to ascertain territorial jurisdiction of high court?

Before   proceeding   to   discuss   the   matter   further   it   may   be
pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not
constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved
before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts.
The expression material facts is also known as integral facts.  
10. Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of Article
226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small
fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the
Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter.”
Their Lordships in paragraphs 29 & 30 further observed as under :
“29. In view of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of
India,   now   if   a   part   of   cause   of   action   arises   outside   the
jurisdiction of the High Court, it would have jurisdiction to issue
a writ.  The decision in Khajoor Singh has, thus, no application.

  
30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small
part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of
the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be
a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the
matter on merit.  In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of
forum conveniens.”
In  Sanjay   Baldeo   Ramteke   Vs.   State   of   Maharashtra  (supra)
appellant was suffering from serious heart muscles disease (Dilated
Cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem which forced him to stay in
native place, wherefrom he had been making all correspondence
with   regard   to   his   disability   compensation.    Prima­facie,   therefore,
considering all the facts together the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction
of   the   Patna   High   Court   where   he   received   a   letter   of   refusal
disentitling him from disability compensation. 
16. Needless to state that Article 226 (2) of the Constitution
of India speaks of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. It reads
thus :
“The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or
writs   to   any   Government,   authority   or   person   may   also   be
exercised by any high Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the
seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories.” 

  
It is clear from the above constitutional provision that a
High Court can exercise the jurisdiction within the territories within
which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 
In the present controversy it would not be out of place to
mention here provisions of Section 41 of the Bombay Reorganisation
Act, 1960 and Rule 1 of chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court
Appellate Side Rules which deals with presentation of proceedings in
the   offices   at   Nagpur,   Aurangabad   and   Goa.     The   provisions   of
section 41 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 read with Chapter
XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules cannot abridge
the writ jurisdiction and basically designed to meet administrative
requirements and administrative convenience.   This provision is in
respect   of   any   case   arising   in   the   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court
Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and High Court of Bombay at Goa.
In the present case petitioner is prevented from exercising his rights
and carrying his activities within the jurisdiction of this High Court
also   and   therefore,   in   our   view,   this   Court   does   have   territorial
jurisdiction to decide the controversy between the parties.   
Under Article 226 High Court can exercise the power to
issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any
other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen

within   the   territories   in   relation   to   which   it   exercises   jurisdiction,
notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the
residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is
issued is not within the said territories.   The expression cause of
action   means  bundle   of  facts   which  the   petitioner   must   prove,   if
traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court.
17. In   determining   the   objection   of   lack   of   territorial
jurisdiction this Court has to take into consideration the facts pleaded
in support of the cause of action  albit  without embarking upon an
enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. It is a
settled law that question of territorial jurisdiction needs to be decided
on the facts pleaded in the petition and the truth or otherwise of the
averments made in the petition would be immaterial.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2016.
Shri Asif S/o. Shaukat Qureshi,
V
 The State of Maharashtra,

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
CORAM  :   B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED :  22/12/2016.
Citation: 2017(2) MHLJ 178

Print Page

What is distinction between "Material facts" and "Material particulars,"?

This court has repeatedly stressed the importance of pleadings in an election petition and pointed out the difference between "Material facts" and "Material particulars," While the failure to plead material facts is fatal to the election petition and no amendment of the pleading could be allowed to introduce such material facts after the time limit prescribed for filing the election petition, the absence of material particulars can be cured at a later stage by an appropriate amendment. 

"All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts." In the context of a charge of corrupt practice material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election petition a particular fact is material or not, and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action are "material facts" which must be pleaded, and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate ofSection 83 "Particulars" on the other hand are "the details of the case set up by the party." "Material particulars" within the contemplation of clause (b).of Section 83 (i) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish. The material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of clause (a). 'Particulars' serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative."

The Bench held that if a petition suffers from lack of material facts it is liable to be summarily rejected for want of cause of action and if the deficiency is only of material particulars, the Court has a discretion to allow the petitioner to supply the required particulars even after the expiry of limitation.

Supreme Court of India

L.R. Shivaramagowda Etc vs T.M. Chandrashekar (D) By Lrs. And ... on 1 December, 1998

Bench: A.S. Anand Cj, B.N. Kirpal, M. Srinivasan

 CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  4272 of 1991

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to plead material facts or particulars on basis of which cause of action for filing Election Petition has arisen?

Now coming to the issues that are required to be framed. There
can be no gainsaying of the fact that the issues are framed in respect of only
those facts which are alleged by one of the parties and denied or not admitted

by   other   party,   and   the   issues   are   to   be   framed   to   determine   the   real
controversy involved in the pleadings of the parties. In so far as the Election
Petitions   are   concerned,   be   it   either   those   of   local   bodies   or   assembly   or
parliament, the Election Petition challenging the elections to the local bodies or
legislature   or   parliament,   the   basis   requirement   or   the   fundamental
requirement is that the material facts or particulars on the basis of which the
cause of action for filing the Election Petition has arisen must be pleaded . 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11334 OF 2015 
ALONG WITH 
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3379 OF 2015
Shri Vijay Waman Deshmukh 
Versus
Pune Municipal Corporation 
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE   : 29th April 2016
Citation:2016(4) MHLJ 917

Print Page

How to determine jurisdiction of court on the basis of cause of action?

From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner appellant, would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a 'part of cause of action', nothing less than than.

In the present case, the facts which have been pleaded by the Appellant Company, in our judgment, cannot be said to be essential, integral or material facts so as to constitute a part of 'cause of action' within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The High Court, in our opinion, therefore, was not wrong in dismissing the petition.

Supreme Court of India

Alchemist Limited And Another vs State Bank Of Sikkim And 

Others on 16 March, 2007

Bench: C.K. Thakker, Lokeshwar Singh Panta

 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9698/2006 

Print Page

Whether plaint can be rejected if material facts constituting cause of action not pleaded?

Presently, I am dealing with the application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code claiming rejection of the petition at the threshold on the ground that it fails to disclose the cause of action for want of pleading of material facts. Section 83(1)(a) of the said Act inter alia provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts, which is analogous to Order VI, Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. This provision states that every pleading shall contain a concise form of the material facts on which the party relies for the reliefs claimed. It is well-settled that all the facts, which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a) of the said Act, resulting in dismissal of the election petition at the threshold under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code for failure to disclose complete cause of action. The entire chain of material facts leading to a relief claimed in the petition should be complete and any missing in the link shall result in failure to disclose the cause of action.

47. The cause of action is a bundle of all primary facts, which, if proved, would entitle to a relief claimed in the petition.

Shri Manohar, the learned Senior Advocate does not dispute the position of law that for the purpose of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has to proceed on the assumption that the contents of the petition are true and correct. What are the material facts, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. These are all the principles of law laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court in cases of (i) Charan Dass v. Surinder Kumar and others, reported in 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 318, (ii) Anil Vasudeo Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 310, and

(iii) Jitu Patnaik v. Sanatan Mohakud and others, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 194, relied upon by Shri Manohar.

Coming to the Item No.(iv), it is necessary for the petitioner to plead the material fact that prior to the date of delivery of nomination paper under Section 33(1) of the said Act, the charge/charges were framed against the respondent No.1 in respect of the offences which are not disclosed in Column (5)(i) in the affidavit in Form No.26 by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The date of framing of charge/charges becomes a material fact. Such pleading is significant to make out a case under Section 33-A(1)(i) of the said Act. Shri Manohar is right in urging that in the present case, neither a specific date of framing such charge is pleaded nor the pleading is that the charge was framed prior to the date of delivery of nomination paper by the respondent No.1. Such pleadings are completely absent in the petition.

For the purpose of this application, I proceed on the footing that Column (5)(ii) in Form No.26 is the part and parcel of Section 33-A(1)(i) and (ii) of the said Act and all the undisclosed three cases were required to be disclosed at least in Column (5)(ii) of the affidavit in Form No.26 by the respondent No.1. In order to show such failure to comply, what is required to be pleaded in the petition as a material fact is that the cognizance of the offences in which respondent No.1 is accused, was taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction prior to the date of delivery of nomination paper under Section 33(1) of the said Act.

The date of taking cognizance is a material fact which is also required to be stated in Item (a) in Column (5)(ii) in Form No.26.

It is, therefore, required to be pleaded in the petition, the significance of it being that it raises a presumption about the  knowledge of the pending cases to the respondent No.1. There is neither a specific date of taking cognizance pleaded nor the pleading is that the cognizance was taken prior to the date of delivery of nomination paper by the respondent No.1. Such pleadings are completely absent in this petition. Merely because the respondent No.1 is shown to have been released on execution of bail bond of Rs.3000/- on 18-9-2000, that by itself does not mean that prior to the date of delivery of nomination paper, either the case was pending against him or the Court had taken cognizance of the offences alleged against him. The lack of pleading regarding such material facts becomes fatal for the Court to proceed on the trial of the election petition.

Bombay High Court

Satish Mahadeorao Uke vs Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis And ... on 19 August, 2015

Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande

Civil Application No.993 of 2015 In Election Petition No.1 of 2014
Citation:2016(2) MHLJ639

Print Page

Whether court has duty that full and material facts are brought on record ?

As observed by this Court in the case of Zahira Habibulla Sheikh & anr. vs. State of Gujarat & ors., (2004) 4 SCC 158, the prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and Courts could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness. Court has a greater duty and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the criminal justice administration itself. As succinctly stated in Jennison vs. Baker (All ER p. 1006d) “The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope.” Courts have to ensure that accused persons are punished and that the might or authority of the State is not used to shield themselves or their men. It should be ensured that they do not wield such powers which under the Constitution have to be held only in trust for the public and society at large. If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiencies, courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of [pic]law. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.

Supreme Court of India

Patel Maheshbhai Ranchobhai & Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014

Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, Abhay Manohar Sapre

Print Page

Supreme Court: Importance of Material facts and full particulars in pleading

Lordships of the Supreme Court in 2009 (10) SCC at page 548 have observed thus: `material facts' are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defence depends.

Broadly speaking, all primary or basic facts which are

necessary either to prove the cause of action by the

plaintiff or defence by the defendant are `material

facts'. Material facts are facts which, if established,

would give the petitioner the relief prayed for. But

again what could be said to be material facts would

depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of

universal application can be laid down".

 It was laid down therein that it is mandatory to first of all record a concise statement of material facts and then the fullest possible particular. Any omission of even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and statement of claim would be treated as bad. The function of particulars is to present in full, a picture 28

of the cause of action and to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. The learned Judges further held therein that the `material facts' and `material particulars' are distinct matters and while the material facts will mention statements of fact, the particulars will set out the names of persons with date, time and place while stating the material facts as it will not be sufficient merely to quote the words of the section since the efficacy of the material facts in that event would be lost.

38. While dealing with the question of material facts and material particulars, we also considered it appropriate to take into account the ratio of the decision delivered in the case of Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs. Ramaratan Bapu and Ors. reported in 2004 (7) SCC 181 wherein the three Judge Bench of this Court had been pleased to consider the question as to what would constitute material facts and material particulars and also discussed its concept and the distinction between the two. In this authority too, it was emphasized and held that what particulars would amount to `material facts' would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It was also held that material particulars, on the other hand, are details in support of material facts and the expression material facts although have not been defined in the Act nor in CPC, it will have to be inferred that material facts are those facts upon which the party relies for his claim or defence. In other words, material facts are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defence depend. But what particulars ultimately will be said to be `material facts' would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. 29

Particulars, on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party. This amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving finishing touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. Thus, material particulars ensure conduct of fair trial which would not take the opposite party by surprise.

Supreme Court of India

Govind Singh vs Harchand Kaur on 22 November, 2010

Print Page