Evidence will be functional only if you plead: Supreme Court
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”.
 C.A.Nos.4883 48817 IN THE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4883 4884 OF 2017 Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr. ...Appellant(s Surya Pratap & Ors ...Respondent(s JUDGMENT R.SUBHASH REDDY J. These civil appeals are filed by the plaintiffs in the Original Suit No. 107 2010 pending on the file of Civil Judge Saidpur Gazipur aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2013 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 37415 2013 and 37416 of The writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 37415 2013 filed before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was directed against the order dated 22.02.2013 C.A.Nos.4883 48817 passed by the Trial Court on an Application No. 97 C in O.S. No. 107 2010 and the order of the Revisional Court dated 02.07.2013 passed in Revision No 85 2013 passed by the District Judge Gazipur. W.P C) No. 37416 2013 was filed against the order dated 10.05.2013 in the same suit passed on Application No. 109 C as confirmed by the Revisional Court in Civil Revision No.82 2013 vide order dated The appellants herein are plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 107 2010 filed on the file of Civil Judge Saidpur. 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 favor of defendant no.1 registered before Sub Registrar Jakhaniya District Gazipur. Further consequential injunction orders are sought to restrain the defendant herein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellants plaintiffs with the property as mentioned in the plaint. It is an undisputed fact that the evidence is closed and the matter was coming up for arguments in the above said suit and when the matter C.A.Nos.4883 48817 was listed for final arguments at that stage the appellants have filed an Application No. 97 C to summon the record regarding the leaves of Ramesh Chander Singh from Rajput Regiment Centre Fatehgarh The said Ramesh Chander Singh is the father of first respondent who is arrayed as second defendant in the suit. Third defendant is the mother of first defendant who claims he is the adopted son of late Sudama Singh. It is 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 Singh 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 2001 leave records of defendant No.2 Ramesh Chander Singh from Rajput Regiment Centre Fatehgarh. The said application was opposed by filing objections by the respondents. The Trial Court mainly on the ground that there was no such pleading C.A.Nos.4883 48817 in the plaint and also on the ground that such application was filed at the belated stage dismissed the said application by order dated 22.02.2013. Almost with similar prayer as sought in Application No. 97 C another application was filed in Application No.109 C and the said application is also dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated Questioning the aforesaid two orders that is the order dated 22.02.2013 passed in Application No 97 C and a subsequent order dated 10.05.2013 passed in Application No. 109 C the plaintiffs have carried the matter by way of revision petitions before the District Court which are ended in dismissal and aggrieved by the same the petitioners have filed writ petitions before the High Court in W.P.(C) Nos 37415 2013 and 37416 2013 which are dismissed by separate orders vide orders dated 12.07.2013 We have heard Sri S.D. Singh learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi learned counsel appearing for the C.A.Nos.4883 48817 Having heard the learned counsels on both sides we have perused the impugned orders and other material placed on record. The suit in Original Suit No. 107 2010 is filed for cancellation of registered adoption deed and for consequential injunction orders. 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. 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 C.A.Nos.4883 48817 as on 14.11.2001. There was an order from the High Court 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. Though the first application for summoning the record in Application No.97 C was dismissed by the Trial Court the appellants have filed similar application again in Application No. 109 C for the very same relief which is also rightly rejected by the Trial Court. C.A.Nos.4883 48817 In our view the reasons recorded in the orders passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Revisional Court and High Court 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 High Court for expeditious disposal of the suit appellants plaintiffs were trying to protract the litigation. 10. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs (ASHOK BHUSHAN J (R.SUBHASH REDDY J (M.R.SHAH J NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 03 2020 