PLEADINGS-INTRODUCTION

The present-day system of pleadings is based on the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
supplemented from time to time by rules in that behalf by High Courts of the States. There are rules of
Supreme Court and rules by special enactments as well.

For one, words ’plaints’ and ‘complaints’ are nearly synonyms. In both, the expression of grievance is
predominant. Verily, when a suitor files a statement of grievance, he is plaintiff and he files a ‘complaint’
containing allegations and claims remedy. As days passed, we have taken up the word ‘plaint’ for Civil
Court and word ‘complaint’ for the Criminal Court.

Order6, R.I. of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) defines ‘pleading’. It means either a plaint or a ‘written
statement’. With the passing time written pleadings supplanted archaic oral pleadings. When reduced to
writing the scope of confusion for obvious reasons, was made narrower. Pleadings should be read, not
by the piecemeal but as a whole and should be liberally construed. Every venial defect should not be
allowed to deflect a pleading, for a plaintiff, case should not be defeated merely on the ground of some
technical defect in his pleadings provided he succeeds on the real issues of the case.

Coming to construction of pleadings, Sarkaria J held: “A pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain
its impact. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in
isolation. Although it is the substance and not mere the form that has to be looked into the pleading has
to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words, or change of its apparent
grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be granted gathered, primarily, from the
tenor and term of his pleading taken as a whole.

PRINCIPLE OF PLEADINGS
It is one of the settled principles of system of pleadings that an averment, which is not denied by the
opposite party must be taken by the court to have admitted. The only way which the law provides for
the denial of an averment of fact is by filling a written statement or a counter affidavit. In this case, the
defendants had fated no counter. It is not a case where the defendants are being denied adequate
opportunity to file a counter affidavit. They have asked for & have been freely granted several
adjournments, which are more than enough to enable them to file a counter if they had been so
minded. In these circumstances, the appointment of a receiver is unavoidably brought about by the acts
of omission either knowingly or unknowingly done but certainly willingly committed by the defendants.

OBJECT OF PLEADINGS
Case: Balli Ram v/s Governor General (1946) Cal. 294.
The main object of pleading is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is pleading
crystallize the points on which the parties to the suit are at issue. The parties issue. The parties to the
suit are at issue. The parties come to know what the matters in dispute are and what facts they have to
prove at the trial.

Lord Harlsbury observed-

Whatever system of planning may exist, the sole object of it is that each side may be fully alive to the
questions that are about to be argued in order that they may have an opportunity to bring forward such
evidence of may be appropriate to the issue. But the knowing beforehand what point the opposite party
will raise at the trial, the parties become prepared to meet them & are not taken by surprise as there
would have been no rules of pleadings to compel the parties to lay their cases before the opposite party
before commencement of the actual trial.

The object of pleading is to put the opposite party on the vigil regarding the case based on the said
pleading & if the pleadings though not specific do disclose the case the opposite party is to meet that it
would not be improper for the courts to give relief notwithstanding the position in law that the court
cannot grant relief to parties on a case for which there was no foundation in the pleadings.

Case Haji Abdulla H.A.S. Dhanmesthaparam v/s T.V. Hamid AIR 1985 Ker.93.