A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice M.R.Shah, has in the judgment of the case- Biraji alias Brijraji & Another v. Surya Pratap & Others, delivered on November 3, 2020, reiterated "fairly well settled" law that in absence of pleading , any amount of evidence will not help the party.
After hearing the lawyers on both sides, the Supreme Court has noted after perusing the impugned orders and other material placed on record, that the Original Suit 107/2010 was filed for cancellation of registered adoption deed and for consequential injunction orders.
In the adoption deed itself, the ceremony which had taken place on November 14, 2001, was mentioned, hence it was within the knowledge of the appellant-plaintiffs even on the day of filing of the Suit.
In absence of any pleading in the suit filed by the appellants, at belated stage, after evidence is closed, the applicants have filed the application to summon the record relating to leave/service of Ramesh Chander Singh on November 14, 2001 from the Rajput Regiment Centre Fatehgarh. It is fairly well settled that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party, when the adoption ceremony, which had taken place on November 14, 2001, is mentioned in the registered adoption deed, which was questioned in the suit, there is absolutely no reason for not raising specific plea in the suit and to file application at belated stage to summon the record to prove that the second respondent Ramesh Chander Singh was on duty as on November14, 2001.
There was an order from the Allahabad HC 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 HC. 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 in 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 revision on May 3, 2013. The said order has become final.
Despite rejection of the application by the Trial Court, the appellants filed similar application again for the same relief, which was also rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
The civil appeals in this case were filed by the plaintiffs in the Original Suit No. 107/2010, pending on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saidpur, Gazipur, aggrieved by the order passed by the HC in civil WPs 37415-16 of 2013 on July 12, 2013.
The Writ Petition 37415/2013 was directed against the order of February 22, 2013 passed by the Trial Court on application No. 97-C in the Original Suit and the order of the Revisional Court passed on July 2, 2013 by the District Judge, Gazipur. WP 37416 of 2013 was filed against the orders passed on May 10, 2013 in the same suit on the application 109-C and confirming that in revision on July 2, 2013.
In the said suit, the appellants have questioned the adoption deed executed by late Sudama Singh ,who was father of the first plaintiff executed in favour of the defendant-1. Further, consequential injunction orders were sought to restrain the defendant herein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant-plaintiffs with the property as mentioned in the plaint.
It was an undisputed fact that the evidence was closed and the matter was coming up for arguments in the said suit and when the matter was listed for final arguments, at that stage, the appellants had filed an application 97-C, to summon the leave /service record of Ramesh Chander Singh from Fatehgarh. The said Ramesh Chander is father of the first respondent, who is second defendant in the suit. Third defendant is mother of first defendant, who claims that he is adopted son of late Sudama Singh.
It has been the case of the plaintiff that there was no adoption by following the necessary formalities and the claim of adoption is false and incorrect. In the suit filed, they have questioned the registered adoption deed, registered before the Sub-Registrar. On the ground that the second respondent Ramesh Chander was not present during the adoption ceremony and he was on duty on the date of alleged adoption ceremony, the aforesaid application was filed in Application No. 97-C for summoning the 2011 leave records of Ramesh Chander.
The said application was opposed by filing objections by the respondents. The Trial Court, mainly on the ground that there was no such pleading in the plaint and also on the ground that such application was filed at the belated stage, dismissed the said application by the order of February 22, 2013. Another application- 109-C filed to seek same relief met the similar fate on May 10, 2013.
Questioning these two orders, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved the District Court in revision and aggrieved by the same, they filed writ petitions in the HC and suffered dismissals by separate orders there, on July 12, 2013.These High Court orders led to filing of these appeals before the Supreme Court.
After hearing the lawyers of both sides, The SC perused the impugned orders and other material placed on record. The Suit in Original Suit has been filed for cancellation of registered adoption deed and for consequential injunction orders .In the adoption deed itself, the ceremony, which had taken place on November 14, 2001 was mentioned, hence it was within the knowledge of the appellant-plaintiffs even on the date of filing of the suit.
In the SC's view, the reasons recorded in the orders passed by the Trial Court, as confirmed in revision and by the HC are valid and are in accordance with the settled principles of law. It is clear from the conduct of the appellants, that in spite of directions from the HC, for expeditious disposal of the suit, the appellant- plaintiffs were trying to protract the litigation. The SC found no merits in appeals, these have been dismissed.
