The term Plaint has not been defined in the Code. However, it can be defined as a statement of claim by presentation of which the suit is instituted. It is pleading of the plaintiff. Thus, it is a legal document which contains the written statement of the plaintiff’s claim. It is the first step towards the initiation of a suit. Through the help of plaint, the plaintiff narrates or describes the cause of action and related information which is considered as essential from the viewpoint of the suit.  Order VII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1907, lays down rules relating to plaint. Rules 1-8 of Order VII deals with particular required in a plaint.

Contents of a Plaint Order VII Rules 1-8:

Heading and Title:

Rule 1 of Order VII lays down that a plaint must contain certain particulars required to be stated in the plaint:

1. Name of the court (For e. g. in the Matter of Civil Judge Junior Division) in which the matter is to be tried [Rule 1(a)]:

The name of the court should be written on the plaint as the heading. It is not necessary to mention the name of the presiding officer of the court. The name of the Court is sufficient, For example: – 

In the Court of the District Judge, Rajkot.

In the Judicature of Bombay High Court

2. The name, description and place of residence of plaintiff [Rule 1(b)]:

3.The name, description and place of residence of defendant [Rule 1(c)]:

• There must be two parties in every suit, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant. However, there may be more than one plaintiff, and defendant.  
• All particulars of the parties such as name, residence, father’s name, age, etc. which are necessary to identify the parties, must be stated in the plaint.
• In the case of more than one party, all of their names have to be mentioned in the plaint according to their pleadings.  
• When a plaintiff has some defects or problems in health or any type of disability, the Plaint should contain a statement of these effects. 

In Shantadurga Temple v. M F Jose, AIR 1976 Goa 54 case, the Court held that where full particulars regarding a defendant are not known to the plaintiff, an insufficient or even improper description does not make the plaint defective.

4. Title of Suit:

The title of the suit contains the reasons for approaching the court and the jurisdiction before which the plaint is initiated. Title of suit does not decide the jurisdiction.

Body of Plaint:

It is the body of the plaint wherein the plaintiff describes his/her concerns in an elaborative manner. That should be divided into short paragraphs, which each contains one fact. Body of the plaint decides jurisdiction.

The body is divided into two further parts which are as follows:

Formal Part:

5.The cause of action (Pleadings) [Rule 1(e)]:

• Plaint should contain the facts due to which cause of action arises and where the cause of action arises it should also be mentioned. The cause of action is an act, action, or omission, that gives rise to the institution of a suit.

In Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978) 2 SCC 91 case, the Court held that even though the expression “cause of action” has not been defined in the Code, it may be described as “a bundle of essential facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed”.

In Purushottam Haridas & Company v. Amruth Ghee Co. Ltd., AIR 1961 AP 143 case, the Court held that it is only necessary to state the facts constituting the cause of action and not legal effect thereof.

In Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal, AIR 1996 SC 729 case, the Court observed: “The object underlying Order VII Rule (1) (e) which requires that the plaint shall contain the particulars about the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, is to enable the court to find out whether the plaint discloses the cause of action because the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it does not disclose the cause of action. “

In A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163 case, the supreme court held that A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a fight to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action.

• It is necessary for every plaint to contain the date when the cause of action arose. The primary objective behind this is to determine the period of limitation.

In Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal, AIR 1996 SC 729 case, the Court observed: “The purpose behind the requirement that the plaint should indicate when the cause of action arose is to help the court in ascertaining whether the suit is not barred by limitation. Any error on the part of the plaintiff in indicating the date on which the cause of action arose would be of little consequence if the cause of action had arisen on the date on which the suit was filed and the suit was within limitation from the said date. The error in mentioning the date on which the cause of action had arisen in the plaint in such a case would not disentitle the plaintiff from seeking relief from the court in the suit.”

• Plaint should not only mention facts due to which cause of action arises but also those facts which help in recognizing the jurisdiction.

In Ramprasad v. Hazarimull, AIR 1931 Cal 458 case, the Court held that if the plaintiff relies on the defendant’s residence or place of business as giving jurisdiction, the facts showing this must be stated in the body of the plaint.

In Tilak Raj v. Prithipal singh, AIR 1961 J & K 61 case, the Court held that the plaint must aver all the facts showing how the court has jurisdiction.

• In the case of minors, a minor cannot sue nor be sued. If one of the parties is a minor or of unsound mind, it will have to be mentioned in the cause title [Rule 1(d)].  
• The value of the subject matter of the suit must be stated properly for the purpose of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and court fees [Rule 1(i)].

In Bai Radha Bai v. Nandlal, AIR 1956 Bom 649 case, the Court held that the decision of the court on the question of jurisdiction must rest on the substantive relief to which the plaintiff is entitled to on the facts alleged by him and not on the prayer which he has chosen to make in the plaint.

• Where the subject matter is an immovable property, a description of the property sufficient to identify the same. In such case the property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. [Rule 3]

In S. Nagraj v. Kalluramma, AIR 1996 Kant 1235 case, the Court held that the description of the property in suit given in the plaint must be sufficient to identify the property. If independently of the boundaries, the property can be sufficiently identified, then any error of misdescription of the boundaries cannot affect either the suit or the decree passed in the suit.

• If the suit is filed in representative capacity, the fact showing that the plaintiff has an actual existing interest in the subject matter and he has taken steps that may be necessary to enable him to file such a suit [Rule 4]
• The reasons why the plaintiff wants to claim exemptions under the law if the suit is initiated after the period of limitation. [Rule 6] The court may grant exemption on such grounds if it thinks fit. However, the court is also free to grant such exemption on any other ground not mentioned in the plaint but raised by the plaintiff, if such ground raised does not destroy the ground in the plaint.

Substantial portion:

• In this portion, plaint must contain all the necessary and vital facts, which constitute the suit. If the plaintiff wishes to pursue a course of action on any other grounds must be duly mentioned.
• It should be shown in the plaint that the defendant is interested in the subject matter and therefore must be called upon by the court.
• Where the defendants are more than one and if the liability is not joint, then the individual liability of each and every defendant must be shown separately.
• In the same way, if there is more than one plaintiff and their cause of action is not joint, then too, the same has to be mentioned separately.

In Ramprasad v. Hazarimull, AIR 1931 Cal 458 case, the Court observed that the plaintiff must give such particulars as will enable the defendant and the court to ascertain from the plaint whether in fact and in law, the cause of action did arise as alleged or not. The plaintiff’s mere statement that it did arise or that he has good cause of action is useless for this purpose.

In Corpn of the City of Banglore v. M. Papaiah, (1989) 3 SCC 612 case, the Court held that for deciding the nature of the suit, the entire plaint has to be read and not merely the relief portion.   

6.Facts showing that the court has jurisdiction [Rule 1(f)]:

The plaint must state all the facts showing how the court has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit.

7. Relief claimed by the Plaintiff, simply or in alternative [Rule 1(g), 7 & 8],

Every plaint must state specifically the relief claimed by the plaintiff either simply or in the alternative. It is the last part of the plaint. It must be claimed properly and accurately. Every plaint must state specifically the kind of relief asked for, be it in the form of damages, specific performance or injunction or damages of any other kind. This must be done with utmost carefulness because the claims in the plaint cannot be backed by oral pleadings. General relief or any relief that the court may grant on its own discretion may not be specifically asked for.

In a money suit, as a general rule, where the plaintiff seeks for recovery of specific amount, the precise amount must be stated in the plaint. However, when the plaintiff sues for mesne profits or for unsettled accounts or for movables where the value cannot be estimated by due diligence, the approximate amount may be claimed in the plaint. [Rule 2]

In Shivisingh v. Harijiram, AIR 1957 Raj 39 case, the Court held that, in a suit for damage, the plaintiff must state the amount of damages claimed and pay court fee thereon.

In Raghu Mahton v. Bulak Mahton, (1953) AP 289 case, the Court held that a claim for past mesne profits must be valued even though approximately and court fee paid thereon. But it is not necessary that future mesne profits should be valued.

In N. K. Rajendra Mohan v. Thirvamadi Rubber Co. Ltd., AIR 2015 SC 2556 case, the Court held that where an issue is not referred to in plaint and plaintiff’s plea was based on it which lacked foundation in the plaint, is not required to be entertained.

In Pitambar v. Ram Joy, (1867) 7 WR 93 case, the Court held that where a plaint asks for more than what plaintiff is entitled to, the court may give him only as much relief as he is entitled to; but the suit must not be dismissed.

It is to be noted that, where a plaint asks for less than what plaintiff is entitled to, the court cannot give him relief in excess of the plaint, unless the plaint is amended before judgment.

In Ravinder Singh v. Shyam Lal, AIR 1984 P & H 145 case, the Court observed that under the system of pleading hereto followed in India, it was usual to add in the plaint a prayer for general relief called the general prayer which run thus: “The plaintiff claims such further or other re3lief as the nature of case may require”. The Court held that under the present rule it is no longer necessary specifically to ask for such relief. Such relief may now always be given to the same extent as if it had been asked for, provided it is not inconsistent with that specifically claimed, and with its case raised by the pleadings.

In Malathi Ravi M.D. v. B.V. Ravi M.D., (2014) 7 SCC 640 case, where a ground of mental cruelty was not taken in the relief clause obtaining divorce, but was discernible from undisputed material brought on record, the Supreme Court exercising its power under Article 142 granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

In Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735 case, the Supreme Court held that The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely in the issue, and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is : did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it ? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and had had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another.

8. Where the Plaintiff has allowed set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount so relinquished [Rule 1(h)],

When the plaintiff is ready to set off a portion of his claim, the Plaint should contain that amount which has been so allowed.  The plaint shall show that the defendant is or claims to be interested in the subject-matter, and that he is liable to be called upon to answer the plaintiffs claimed. [Rule 5]

At last, the content that should be on plaint is the plaintiff verification on oath. The verification can only be done before a competent court or in front of an Oath Commissioner. 

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, T. N. vs Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, case the Court held that the affidavit required to be filed under amended Section 26(2) and Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code has the effect of fixing additional responsibility on the deponent as to the truth of the facts stated in the pleadings. It is, however, made clear that such an affidavit would not be evidence for the purpose of the trial. Further, on amendment of the pleadings, a fresh affidavit shall have to be filed in consonance thereof.  

Format of plaint:

IN THE CIVIL COURT  AT  RAJKOT

Suit No. 166 of 2021

Ajay Mehta

A 106, Gandhi Nagar, Rajkot                                         

……… Plaintiff

V.

Ramesh Chandela

Gandhi Nagar, Rajkot                                                     

…….. Defendant 

Suit for the Injunction On the use of Unused land as a dumping area

The Plaintiff submitted as under:

• The plaintiff is a resident of Gandhi Nagar, Rajkot, and the Defendant is a neighbour of the plaintiff.
• Unused land is near the house of the plaintiff, which is used by the resident of A104 i.e. defendant as a dumping yard for the waste material of his house.
• That the Defendant was all the time throwing the waste material in that unused land near the house of the plaintiff.
• Since a very long time of being used as a dumping yard by the defendant, there is a collection of huge waste material that leads to the health problem of the plaintiff.
• That the court has jurisdiction on this matter to fix an injunction on the use of unused land as a dumping area as it restricts his free movement and also leads to affect health due to defendant action.

Prayer:

• It is Prayed that a decree for the injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. And some other relief as the court thinks fit.

Place: Gandhi Nagar                                                          Date: 04/02/2021 

sd/-

(Ajay Mehta)

Verification:

In the above-named plaintiff do hereby verify that the contents of the paras no. 1,2,3 and 4 are true to my knowledge and the contents of remaining paras are according to legal advice from my advocate which I believe to be true.

Place: Gandhi Nagar 

Date: 04/11/2021                                                                            

s/d of Plaintiff

(Ajay Mehta)

Conclusion:

Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, states “Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed.” This section clearly shows that plaint is very much necessary for the establishment of a suit before the civil or commercial court. This shows that the plaint is a necessary component for the successful initiation of suits in commercial or civil courts and plays a very important role throughout the suit. It must contain all the details prescribed in the Order VII Rules 1 to 8.

The post Plaint appeared first on The Fact Factor.

In this article, we shall study the historical background and the object of civil procedure code.

Historical Background:

The first Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 1859 (Act VII of 1859) by the Committee headed by Mr. John Romily. It was amended in 1877 and, subsequently, in 1882, however, those amendments did not serve the purpose, therefore, the present Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 1908. It was drafted by the Committee headed by Sir Earle Richards. Committee before submitting the draft to the West Minister Parliament travelled India, read its history and ancient texts, and then knew the traditions and culture of this country, and draft legislation was prepared, keeping all such things in view.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908:

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) came into force with effect from January 1, 1909. There are three major amendments. The object of amendments was to keep procedural law in tune with the changing needs of society and even technological advances.

• The Amendment Act (104 of 1976) came into force with effect from February 1, 1977 (except Sections 12, 13, and 50). Section 12 and 50 come into force on May 1, 1977 and Section 13 came into force on July 1, 1977.
• The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 came into force from July 1, 2002.
• The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 came into force from July 1, 2002.

The Object of Civil Procedure Code:

 The word CODE signifies ‘a systematic collection of statutes, a body of laws so arranged as to avoid inconsistency and overlapping‘. The Preamble of the Code states that the object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature. The main aim of the CPC is to facilitate justice and seek an end to the litigation rather than provide any form of punishment and penalties. The Civil Procedure Code directs each activity in civil courts and the gatherings previously it till the execution of the degree and order.

In Administrator General of Bengal v. Prem Lal Mullick ILR (1895) 22 Cal 788 (PC) and Mahant Shantha Nand Gir Chela v. Mahant Basu Devanand, AIR 1930 All 225 (230) FB case, the Court observed that to consolidate law means to collect, statutory law relating to a particular subject and to bring it down to date in order that it may form a useful Code applicable to circumstances existing at the time when the consolidation Act is enacted.

In Kapildeo Prasad v. Ramanand Prasad, AIR 2007 Pat 1 case, the Patna High Court the Court observed that CPC is a complete code in itself. Once proceedings are initiated under the Code, rights, and remedies have to be looked thereunder.

In Prem Lal Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, AIR 2007 SC 1247 case, the Court observed that the code consolidates and amends laws relating to Courts of Civil Judicature. It also deals with substantive rights but mainly aims to consolidate the law relating to civil courts and procedures.

In Saiyad Mohammad Bakar v. Abdul Habib Hasan Arab AIR 1998 SC 1624 case, the Court opined that procedural law is always subservient to substantive and is in aid to justice. Nothing can be given by a procedural law what is not sought to be given by substantive law and nothing can be taken away by the procedural law what is given by the substantive law. 

Extent and Applicability

The Code is applicable to the whole country except –

1. The State of Jammu and Kashmir
2. The state of Nagaland and the tribal areas

Through the amendment of 1976, the provision has also been extended to scheduled areas.

In Westarly Dkhar v. Sehekaya Lyngdoh, (2015) 4 SCC 292 case the Court held that courts in such areas (exempted areas) shall be guided by the spirit of the Code and would not be bound by the letter of CPC.

Retrospective Operation

The principle of interpretation of statutes that procedural laws are well-settled is always retrospective in operation unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Their provisions will already apply to the proceedings commenced at the time of enactment. This is so because no can have a vested right in forms of procedure.

In Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Chaudhry, AIR 1957 SC 540 case, the Court held that the CPC is not retrospective in operation.

Interpretation of the Act:

In Sangram Singh v. Election Trbunal, AIR 1955 SC 425 (429) case, the Court held that the function of adjective law is to facilitate justice and further its ends.In

In RMD Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 (631) case, the Supreme Court observed that a statute is to be construed according “ to the intention of them that make it”. The duty of the Judicature is “to act upon the true intention of the Legislature – the mens or sentential legis”.

In District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & Steel Co., AIR 2001 SC 3134 (3152) case, the Court held that if a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the Legislature.

In Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484 (488) case, the Court held that a “hypertechnical view” should not be adopted by the court in interpreting procedural law.

In Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India, AIR 1984 SC 1004 (1010) case, the Court observed that our laws of procedure are based on the principle that, as far as possible, no proceedings in the court of law should be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore must be interpreted in a manner so as to subserve and advance the cause of justice rather than defeat it.

In The State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari, AIR 1976 SC 1177 case, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of the procedural law, observed “We must always remember that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed  that   procedural   prescriptions   are    the    hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. Where the non- compliance, tho’ procedural, will thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After, all Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities.

In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 case, the Court observed that substantial justice has to be preferred upon the procedural technicalities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India returned the finding as under ”When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.”

In Zolba v. Keshao, AIR 2008 SC 2099 case, the Court observed that the use of the word ‘shall’ is ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision but having regard to the context in which it is used or having regard to the intention of the legislation, the same can be construed as directory.

In next article, we shall study the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure.

For More Articles on the Code of Civil Procedure Click Here

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > Object of Civil Procedure Code

The post Object and Extent of the Civil Procedure Code appeared first on The Fact Factor.