Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Application to Summon Records in Adoption Dispute: Biraji vs. Surya Pratap (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 3, 2020

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a party introduce new evidence after the evidence stage is closed, especially when the information was available from the beginning? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil dispute concerning the validity of an adoption deed. The Court examined whether the trial court was correct in rejecting applications to summon records at a belated stage. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellants, Biraji and another, filed a suit (O.S. No. 107/2010) in the court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) Saidpur, Gazipur, challenging an adoption deed executed by the late Sudama Singh, father of the first appellant. The deed favored the first defendant, Surya Pratap. The appellants sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with their possession of the property mentioned in the plaint. The adoption deed, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Jakhaniya, District Gazipur, stated that the adoption ceremony took place on November 14, 2001. The appellants claimed that the adoption was invalid as it did not follow the necessary legal formalities. They specifically contended that Ramesh Chander Singh, the father of the first respondent and second defendant, was not present during the ceremony as he was on duty.

Initially, the matter was at the stage of final arguments after the evidence was closed. It was at this point that the appellants filed two applications (Application No. 97-C and Application No. 109-C) seeking to summon the leave records of Ramesh Chander Singh from the Rajput Regiment Centre Fatehgarh for the year 2001. The trial court dismissed both applications, citing the lack of specific pleadings in the plaint and the belated stage at which the applications were filed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed Application No. 97-C on February 22, 2013, citing the absence of specific pleadings in the plaint and the belated stage of the application. The Revisional Court upheld this decision on July 2, 2013. Similarly, Application No. 109-C was dismissed by the Trial Court on May 10, 2013, and this was also upheld by the Revisional Court on July 2, 2013. The appellants then filed writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 37415/2013 and 37416/2013) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which were also dismissed on July 12, 2013. The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, agreeing that the applications were filed at a belated stage and lacked proper pleading. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court with civil appeals against the High Court’s orders.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the principles of civil procedure, specifically concerning the timing of applications for summoning evidence and the importance of pleadings. While the judgment does not explicitly cite specific sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, the underlying principles are rooted in the procedural framework that governs civil litigation in India. The core principle is that parties must present their case in a timely manner and that evidence should align with the pleadings. The court emphasized that evidence cannot be introduced to prove a fact that was not pleaded in the plaint. The court also highlighted the principle that belated applications, especially after the closure of evidence, should be discouraged to prevent protraction of litigation.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the leave records of Ramesh Chander Singh were crucial to prove that he was not present during the adoption ceremony.
• They contended that the adoption deed was invalid due to the absence of Ramesh Chander Singh, a necessary party to the adoption.
• They submitted that the trial court erred in dismissing their applications to summon the records, as it was essential evidence to establish the falsity of the adoption deed.
• The appellants argued that the applications were necessary to prove that the second respondent- Ramesh Chander Singh was on duty as on 14.11.2001 and was not present at the adoption ceremony.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellants were aware of the date of the adoption ceremony (14.11.2001) from the adoption deed itself.
• They contended that the appellants did not raise the issue of Ramesh Chander Singh’s absence in their initial pleadings.
• They argued that the applications were filed at a belated stage, after the closure of evidence, and were intended to protract the litigation.
• They submitted that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the applications (Application No. 97-C and Application No. 109-C) filed by the appellants to summon the leave records of Ramesh Chander Singh at a belated stage after closure of evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. However, the court relied on the settled principle of law that in the absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party. The court also relied on the principle that belated applications, especially after the closure of evidence, should be discouraged to prevent protraction of litigation.

[TABLE] of Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on the settled principle of law that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party. This principle was applied to reject the appellants’ submission that the leave records of Ramesh Chander Singh were crucial evidence, as this fact was not pleaded in the initial pleadings.
• The court also relied on the principle that belated applications should be discouraged to prevent protraction of litigation. This principle was applied to reject the appellants’ applications as they were filed after the closure of evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by procedural propriety and the need to prevent the protraction of litigation. The court emphasized that parties must adhere to the established rules of procedure, which require them to raise all relevant issues in their initial pleadings. The court was also concerned about the timing of the applications, which were filed after the closure of evidence, suggesting an attempt to delay the final disposal of the case. The court also considered the fact that the appellants were aware of the date of the adoption ceremony from the adoption deed itself, and they should have raised the issue of Ramesh Chander Singh’s absence in their initial pleadings.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the appellants should be given an opportunity to prove their case by summoning the records. However, this was rejected because it would violate the principles of civil procedure and encourage parties to delay proceedings by filing belated applications. The court also considered that the appellants had already filed an application for amendment of the plaint, which was dismissed, and the said order had become final. The court concluded that the trial court was correct in rejecting the applications to summon the records.

The decision was based on the following reasons:

• The appellants were aware of the date of the adoption ceremony from the adoption deed itself.
• The appellants did not raise the issue of Ramesh Chander Singh’s absence in their initial pleadings.
• The applications were filed at a belated stage, after the closure of evidence.
• Allowing the applications would protract the litigation.

“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 14.11.2001, 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 14.11.2001.”

“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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench, and all three judges agreed with the decision.

The decision has implications for future cases by reinforcing the importance of proper pleadings and timely applications. It emphasizes that parties cannot introduce new evidence at a belated stage, especially when the information was available from the beginning. This decision will likely discourage parties from attempting to delay proceedings by filing belated applications.

Key Takeaways

• Parties must ensure that their pleadings are comprehensive and include all relevant facts and issues.
• Applications for summoning evidence should be filed in a timely manner and not at a belated stage after the closure of evidence.
• Courts will not allow parties to introduce new evidence to prove facts that were not pleaded in the plaint.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural propriety and discourages attempts to protract litigation.
• This case sets a precedent for the rejection of belated applications for summoning records, especially when the information was available to the applicant from the beginning.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case. The court simply dismissed the appeals and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a trial court is justified in rejecting applications to summon records filed at a belated stage after the closure of evidence, particularly when the issue was known to the applicant from the beginning and was not pleaded in the initial pleadings. This decision reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the importance of proper pleadings and timely applications in civil litigation. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of these principles in the context of belated applications for summoning evidence.

Conclusion

In the case of Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr. vs. Surya Pratap & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had rejected the appellants’ applications to summon the leave records of Ramesh Chander Singh. The court emphasized the importance of proper pleadings and timely applications, ruling that parties cannot introduce new evidence at a belated stage to prove facts not pleaded in the initial plaint. The judgment reinforces the existing principles of civil procedure and discourages attempts to protract litigation by filing belated applications.

Category

Parent Category: Civil Procedure

Child Category: Pleadings

Child Category: Evidence

Child Category: Timely Applications

Parent Category: Adoption Law

Child Category: Adoption Deed

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Category: Order 16, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Biraji vs. Surya Pratap case?

A: The main issue was whether a trial court can reject an application to summon records filed at a belated stage after the closure of evidence, especially when the issue was known to the applicant from the beginning.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court reject the appellants’ plea?

A: The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ plea because they did not raise the issue of Ramesh Chander Singh’s absence in their initial pleadings and filed the application to summon records at a belated stage after the closure of evidence.

Q: What is the significance of pleadings in a civil case?

A: Pleadings are crucial in a civil case as they outline the facts and issues that each party intends to prove. Evidence must align with the pleadings. If a fact is not pleaded, evidence cannot be introduced to prove it.

Q: What does the judgment say about filing applications at a belated stage?

A: The judgment emphasizes that applications should be filed in a timely manner and not at a belated stage after the closure of evidence. Belated applications are discouraged to prevent protraction of litigation.

Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?

A: The practical implication is that parties must ensure that their pleadings are comprehensive and include all relevant facts and issues. They should also file applications for summoning evidence in a timely manner. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of their applications.