The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated it’s stance on the fact that if a pleading has not been made by the party, no amount of evidence produced later in a civil suit will help. The bench consisting of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah held the above mentioned in the matter of Biraji @ Brijraji vs. Surya Pratap [C.A.Nos.4883-4884 of 2017].
The plaintiff questioned the deed of adoption that his father. The plaintiff contended that the adoption was not carried out as per required formalities. He even went on to allege that the father was not present during that ceremony and pleaded the court to summon his father’s leave application of the Rajput Regiment Centre Fatehgarh.
The Trial Court as well as the High Court opined that firstly, no such pleading was made by the Plaintiff and secondly, the application was filed by the plaintiff at a much later stage. The plaintiff thus appealed to the Supreme Court.
The court held that “In the adoption deed itself, the ceremony which had taken place on 14.11.2001 was mentioned, hence it was within the knowledge of the appellants plaintiffs even on the date of filing of the suit. In the absence of any pleading in the suit filed by the appellants, at belated stage, after evidence is closed, the appellants have filed the application to summon the record relating to leave/service of Ramesh Chander Singh on 14.11.2001 from the Rajput Regiment Centre Fatehgarh.”
There was an order from the High Court stating that “for expeditious disposal of the suit and the application which was filed belatedly is rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Revisional Court and High Court. It is also pertinent to mention, subsequent to dismissal of the application in Application No. 97-C, for summoning the leave/service record of defendant No.2, from his place of working that is Rajput Regiment Centre Fatehgarh, by the Trial Court on the ground that there was no such pleading in the suit, the appellants herein have filed application for amendment of the plaint in an Application No. 103-A, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and said order was confirmed by the District Judge, Gazipur in Civil Revision No. 58 of 2013 by order dated 03.05.2013. The said order has become final”.
Also “Though the first application for summoning the record in Application was dismissed by the Trial Court, the appellants have filed similar application again for the very same relief, which is also rightly rejected by the Trial Court.”
The court stated that “It is clear from the conduct of the appellants, that in spite of directions from the High Court, for expeditious disposal of the suit, appellants plaintiffs were trying to protract the litigation”.
