Find a Lawyer

First Appeal from Original Order No.157 of 1985, decided on 24th February, 1987.

---O.VI, R.7, O.VII, Rr.2, 7 & O.VIII, R.6--Parties bound by pleadings--Parties being bound by their own pleadings, held, could not extend their claim beyond what they might have put down in plaint or written statement.

---O.XXVI, Rr.11, 12 & O.XLIII, R.1--Taking part in proceedings before Local Commissioner before filing appeal--Effect on right of appeal--Appellants before filing appeal against order of Appellate Court below whereby such Court remanded case to Trial Court for re-determination of claim of respondent by appointment of Local Commissioner, took part in proceedings before Local Commissioner-- Contention of respondent that as appellant had taken part in proceedings before Local Commissioner by producing evidence and even cross-examining opposite witnesses so their appeal was not competent, repelled--Proceedings before Local Commissioner having been taken up when appellants' right to file appeal had yet to be availed of, right of appeal being a vested right, held, could not be denied to appellants.

---O.VI, R.17 & OXLIII, R.1--Amendment of written statement--Oral request for--Oral prayer made by respondent to amend written statement at appellate stage was turned down by High Court.

Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellants.

Syed Tanseer Asghar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 24^th February, 1987.

This F.A.O. arises from an order, dated 3-6-1985 of the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, whereby he remanded the case to the trial Court with a direction that the cost of improvements claimed by the respondents- vendees may be re-determined by appointment of a Local Commissioner.

2. In their written statement the respondents vendees claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2000 for improvements including a sum of Rs.720 incurred by them on the purchase of saplings etc. In the evidence they showed that the improvements were worth Rs.5,000 odd. The trial Court allowed them in toto a sum of Rs.5,720. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge remanded the case-as already pointed out for re-determination of the cost of improvement by appointment of a Local Commissioner.

3. In support of the F.A.O. it has been strenuously urged that the cost of improvements could by no means be more than that claimed by the respondents in their written statement and the same being Rs.2,000, it was not open to the trial Court to grant them Rs.5,720,... much less to the lower appellate Court to get it re-determined by issuance of a Commission. Thus the order, challenged in the present revision was assailed to be beyond pleadings.

4. I have perused the written statement wherein the maximum compensation claimed was Rs.2,000. The trial Court showed benevolence to increase it to Rs.5,720 because there the respondents claimed that they were entitled to Rs.5,000 besides the cost of saplings amounting to Rs.720. Strictly speaking it was not permissible for the trial Court to allow the respondents beyond that they themselves claimed in the pleadings unless the written statement was amended. However, if it took a little more charitable view of the matter, it was not assailed in the appeal by filing cross-objections on behalf of the present appellants. In fact they were agreeable to pay it but the order of remand made the things worse for them. It is an established principle that the parties are bound by their own pleadings. They cannot extend their claim beyond what they might have put down in the plaint or the written statement. On willingness of the appellants to pay Rs.5,720 to the respondents as compensation, the point was no more disputed. It rather presented a fait accomplii.

5. Mr. Tanseer Asghar Shah, Advocate for the respondents contended that after remand the appellants took part before the Local Commissioner by producing evidence and even cross-examining the opposite witnesses. According to him it was not open to the appellants to assail those proceedings because they had acquiesced in them. The Local Commissioner appears to have increased the amount to Rs.24,000 odd.

6. The proceedings before the Local Commissioner were taken up when the appellants' right to file appeal had yet to be availed of. It goes without saying that they could not be denied such a vested right and the proceedings so taken even before filing of the present appeal were of no consequence. The basic point is that the respondents could not claim more than what they asked and if the trial Court gave them something in excess thereof, the same shall prevail because it was not objected to before the lower appellate Court. The rest of the effort was quite otiose.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents made oral request to amend the written statement. It is too late in the day and cannot be entertained.

8. The appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./I-19/L Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.