Under which circumstances the court can grant bail to accused even though there is no specific prayer for bail in appeal petition?

 It was also urged by Mr. Nataraj that in the appeal-petition, the Appellant has only asked for setting aside the impugned judgment and order. No specific prayer for bail has been made. But in our opinion, the plea for bail in the context of the present appeal is implicit. The petition which was transferred to the Division Bench carried prayer of the Appellant for being released on bail and argument advanced by Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant is that the High Court itself ought to have granted bail to the Appellant on the basis of available materials. Moreover, the Appellant in the appeal-petition has also asked for bail as interim relief. Since the appeal, in substance, is against the judgment by which prayer for bail was refused, merely based on the manner of framing of reliefs or prayers in the subject-petition, the actual relief sought by the Appellant would not stand eclipsed. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2595 of 2023

Decided On: 05.04.2024

Shoma Kanti Sen Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Aniruddha Bose, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0271/2024.

Print Page

Whether court can grant enquiry for mesne profits even without prayer in this regard?

I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-UCO Bank that the respondents-original plaintiffs did not pray for such an inquiry for the mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in absence of a specific prayer for inquiry into mesne profit, the Trial Court while deciding Small Cause Suit No. 39 of 2001, directed an inquiry into mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in the case of Gulamhusain Asgaraly Vahanvaty (MANU/MH/0600/2011 : 2011 (4) Bom CR 169) (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for appellant-UCO Bank, this Court has taken a view that the relief of mesne profits is a consequential relief to the main relief and the trial court has to pass an order of holding inquiry into mesne profit when the suit is decreed. If such a suit for recovery of possession is dismissed, the question of payment of mesne profits does not arise and therefore, very often, issue of mesne profits is not framed since there is an independent provision in the CPC for holding an inquiry for mesne profits, and only when the suit is decreed further consequential relief is to be granted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 652 of 2006

Decided On: 03.05.2016

UCO Bank, Vs.  Asaram Mohanlal Samdani and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Jadhav, J.

Citation: 2017(2) ALLMR 92

Print Page

Whether court should grant mesne profit if plaintiff has not claimed it in plaint?

It was however pointed out by Shri S.P. Sinha that the High Court erred in awarding to the plaintiffs mesne profits even though there was no demand for the same in the plaint. The learned Solicitor General appearing for the plaintiffs conceded that there was no demand for mesne profits as such but urged that the claim for mesne profits would be included within the expression "awarding possession and occupation of the property aforesaid together with all the rights appertaining thereto." We are afraid that the claim for mesne profits cannot be included within this expression and the High Court was in error in awarding to the plaintiffs mesne profits though they had not been claimed in the plaint. The provision in regard to the mesne profits will therefore have to be deleted from the decree.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 583 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18522 of 2004)

Decided On: 22.01.2008

 Ganapati Madhav Sawant  Vs. Dattur Madhav Sawant

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.

Citation:  2008(3) S.C.C. 183.

Print Page

Whether a party can be granted relief not prayed by him?

Before us today, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the writ petition filed by the respondent-State challenging the Award of the Labour Court, the only plea was against the grant of back wages and nothing more. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the writ petition which has been appended with the paper book. We find that the assertion of the learned counsel is correct. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench was well beyond the scope of the prayers in the writ petition . If the State  felt aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in toto there was no impediment in its way to challenge it in its entirety. We feel that a party must be held to be bound by its pleadings; a prayer clause cannot be construed or dubbed as a technicality. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal deserves to succeed. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench and restore the order of the Labour Court to the extent of reinstatement.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Ranbir Singh vs Executive Engineer on 3 January, 2011

Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Print Page

When prayers in plaint is to be understood in the context of pleading made in that regard?

Under provisions of Order VI Rule 2, material facts are required to be pleaded on which the party pleading relies for his claim. The prayers made are for the purposes of seeking relief on the basis of such averments made in the plaint. The prayer clauses cannot be read in isolation, but they have to be read in conjunction with the pleadings in the plaint. In fact, the prayers would have to be understood in the context of the pleadings made in that regard.

11. The pleadings in the plaint indicate that it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that after purchase of the aforesaid property by Bhalchandra Nandedkar on 14-4-1977, he was put in actual possession. Said possession continued thereafter without any interruption. There are specific assertions in the plaint that even on the date of filing of the suit, it was the plaintiffs who were in possession. In this background, if the prayers as made are examined, it would be clear that the same proceed on the premise that the plaintiffs were in possession. Therefore, reading prayer clause (d) in the plaint along with other averments in the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were seeking possession of the suit property by virtue of making said prayer. When it is the consistent case of the plaintiffs that they were always in possession of the suit property till filing of the suit, then prayer clause (d) cannot be read in a manner that would negate the averments made in the plaint. In fact, on a plain reading of said prayer clause, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were seeking possession of the suit property. Moreover, the Court would have to proceed on the basis of assumption that the averments made in the plaint are correct. On reading the plaint as a whole, the prayers made in that regard would have to be considered. The valuation of the suit as arrived at would be on the basis of such prayers. It cannot be held to be a case of astute drafting of the plaint as sought to be urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, moreso when the plaint is read in its entirety.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2595 OF 2013
PETITIONERS: 
 Ajay   S/o   Bhalchandra   Nandedkar, 
                                                             
VERSUS­

 Mrunali   Prabhakar   Gadgil, 
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Citation; 2015(2)ALLMR134, 2014(5)ABR829, 2014(6)MhLj629
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT: 10­-09-­2014 

Print Page

Whether court can appoint receiver even though there is no prayer in this respect by any party?

In my view, in suitable cases, the Court is not powerless to pass appropriate order for appointment of receiver without any application by any of the parties while rejecting the application for temporary injunction. Such power of course has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases where dismissal of an application for grant of temporary injunction may lead the parties to take law in their own hands and use their own devices either for protection of unlawful possession of recent origin or for gaining possession or such like circumstances. There is no impediment put by the Code of Civil Procedure in passing such order to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. Such order may be imminently required to be passed also so that possession may be made over to that party who is prima facie entitled to possession but is deprived by unlawful conduct or illegal act of the other party. An appointment of receiver can be made on the application of either parties to the litigation as well as suo motu and therefore, absence of application shall , not preclude the Court from passing such order if it is just and convenient. The cases may be varied and many. A party may not have any right to the property and still comes in possession of the property unlawfully and illegally which may be of recent origin and on that basis may seek to protect his possession by filing suit for injunction and by making an application for temporary injunction. The Court may find that such person has no title, right or interest in the properly and is not in lawful possession and, therefore, is not entitled to grant of any temporary injunction. To avoid grave situation where the parties may take law in their own hands even while temporary injunction has been refused in the absence of any application, the Court may make an order of appointment of receiver. Such exceptional order is permissible under law to prevent larger mischief if it is just and convenient in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is nothing wrong if by taking such recourse the plaintiff who has unlawfully come in possession recently is dispossessed during pendency of suit. In suitable and appropriate case, if the trial Court appoints the receiver while rejecting the application for temporary injunction, it cannot be said that such power is without jurisdiction.

Bombay High Court

Mulji Umershi Shah And Etc. vs Paradisia Builders Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 6 February, 1997

Equivalent citations: AIR 1998 Bom 87, 1997 (4) BomCR 97, 1997 (3) MhLj 532

R.M. Lodha, J.

Print Page

Whether court can direct enquiry for mesne profits in absence of prayer?

So   far   the   contention   raised   by   the 
Counsel for the appellants that in absence of any 
pleadings  or  prayers  in the  suit,  enquiry  in  the 
mesne profits should not have been directed by the 
trial   Court   as   held   in   the   case   of  Ganapati 
(supra).   It   is   admitted   position   that,   the 
plaintiff   did   not   plead   or   pray   for   inquiry   of 
mesne   profits   and   therefore,   to   that   extent   such 
inquiry   was   directed   by   the   trial   Court   by 
direction   in   clause­3   of   its   order   dated 
12­12­2008   is   required   to   be   quashed   and   set 
aside.

SECOND APPEAL NO.245 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12907 OF 2011
                                      
     IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Shankar  Manikrao Waghmare  V            Bhaurao  Bapurao Waghmare,

    
                       CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.
                       DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2011
     Citation: 2012(2)BomCR747, 2012(3)MhLj134   

Print Page

Supreme Court: Jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends on pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc.

Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal and Anr (2008) 17 SCC 491. It is relevant to extract the principles enunciated in para 23 of the judgment which are as follows. "23. It is fundamental that in a civil suit, relief to be granted can be only with reference to the prayers made in the pleadings. That apart, in civil suits, grant of relief is circumscribed by various factors like court fee, limitation, parties to the suits, as also grounds barring relief, like res judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, non-joinder of causes of action or parties, etc., which require pleading and proof. Therefore, it would be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit whatever be the relief that is prayed, the court can on examination of facts grant any relief as it thinks fit. In a suit for recovery of rupees one lakh, the court cannot grant a decree for rupees ten lakhs. In a suit for recovery possession of property `A', court cannot grant possession of property `B'. In a suit praying for permanent injunction, court cannot grant a relief of declaration or possession. The jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc." In those circumstances, while reiterating the principles laid down above, we hold that the same are not applicable to the case on hand.1

Supreme Court of India

Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors. on 23 September, 2008

Print Page