Pleading: O6R1

 

Code of Civil Procedure

 

ORDER VI

Pleadings generally

1. Pleading.—“Pleading” shall mean plaint or written statement.

 

Part in Red is taken from Bare Act as it is 

Code of Civil Procedure

Explanation:

Pleadings are statements in writing drawn up and filed by each party to a case, stating what his contentions will be at the trial and giving all such details as his opponent needs to know in order to prepare his case in answer. As per law there are two types of pleadings in India: a) Plaint b) Written  Statement. Plaint is a statement submitted by plaintiff in which he sets out his cause of action with all necessary particulars. A written statement, defendant deals with every material fact alleged by the plaintiff and also states any new facts which tell in his favour, adding such legal objections as he wishes to take to the claim. It is for this reason that “pleading” is shortly defined in the Code of Civil Procedure as meaning a plaint or written statement.

The purpose of pleading is also to eradicate irrelevancy. The parties thus themselves know what are the matters left in dispute and what facts they have to prove at the trial. They are saved the expense and trouble of calling evidence which may prove unnecessary in view of the admissions of the opposite party.

 

History of Pleadings:

At first the pleadings were oral. The parties appeared in open court and a viva voce altercation took place before the Judge, whose duty was to superintend or “moderate” the oral contentions. The alternate allegations were so managed as, at length, to arrive at some specific point or matter affirmed on one side and denied on the other, which was agreed to be the question for decision. The parties were then said to be “at issue”, and the trial commenced. Only one issue was allowed to be raised.

During this parole altercation, one of the officers of the court was busy writing on a parchment roll an official report of the allegations of the parties and the acts of the court itself during the proceedings. This was called the “record”. The system of oral pleadings gradually fell into disuse, and pleaders began to borrow the roll and entered their statements thereon themselves. Later on, the pleadings began to be drawn up on plain paper and interchanged between the parties; then, after an issue had been arrived at, they were transcribed on the roll.

The principles on which pleadings were framed remained substantially the same till 1852, but the strictness used in their application and the hyper-technicality by which the substantial issues were lost sight of seriously affected their usefulness. An effort was made towards improvement of these matters by provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852-1860. In 1873, it was found necessary to adopt a more thorough method of reform, and the Judicature Act introduced a system of pleading which, whilst precise in character, is not overloaded with technicalities and works admirably.

In India, pleadings have been extremely lax and most inartistically drawn up, except in Presidency Towns where the work is in the hands of barristers assisted by trained solicitors. They are neither concise nor precise, and contain vague, irrelevant and general statements, from which it is difficult to ascertain the questions actually in controversy. This was realized by the Indian Legislature in 1908, and in the Code of Civil Procedure enacted in that year, a few rules of pleading were added, based on the English rules of pleading. These rules are contained in O. 6 of the Code.

Judgments:

1) Someshwar v. Tribhuwao, 1934 (P. C.) 130; 149 I. C. 480 and Balli Ram v. Governor-General, 1946 (Cal.) 249: The whole object of pleading is to give fair notice to each party of “what the opponent’s case is?”, to ascertain, with precision, the points on which the parties agree and those on which they differ, and thus to bring the parties to a definite issue.

2) Sayad Muhammad v. Fatteh, 22 C. 324 (P. C.) and Thorp v. Holds- worth, 3 Ch. D., 637, 639: By knowing beforehand, what points the opposite party will raise at the trial they are prepared to meet them and are not taken by surprise as they would have been, had there been no rules of pleading to compel the parties to lay bare their cases before the opposite party before the commencement of the actual trial.

3) Mahendra Nath v. Surajmal, 43 C.W.N. 17: The Calcutta High Court ruled that the court would be disposed towards construction which would permit rather than shut out, an adjudication of the real rights of the parties, when from the facts set out, such adjudication may be held to be justified, though not asked for in specific terms or in strict form. In this case a right of easement claimed by the plaintiff was not specifically alleged in the plaint. 

4) London and Lancashire Co. v. Binoy, 1943 (Cal.) 218: The Calcutta High Court has held that though there may be some reason for saying that pleadings in this country are not to be strictly cons¬ trued, yet at the same time there is no reason why the parties should be allowed to ignore altogether the rules of pleadings which have been laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. The leniency of the Court in the construction should be no encouragement to pleaders in disregarding rules of pleading.

5) Per Westropp C. J., in Apaya v. Rama, 3 B., 210: For the same reasons for which courts in the Mofussil in India are enjoined not to be very strict in their construction of pleadings, it has been laid down that “the responsibility of clearly perceiving and raising points, which arise upon the pleadings and evidence, and the proper adjudication of which is essential for the ends of justice, rests on the court as much as on the parties or their pleaders”.

6)