New Plea

Pleadings are formal statements made by parties of their respective claims and defenses for the purpose of determining issues to be adjudicated

Court cannot set up a different plea for a party and decide the case on that basis.

When a particular plea or objection is not raised before fora below, it is not open for the party to raise the controversy before High Court.

Stance which was not taken in leave application could not be allowed to be raised at appellate stage.

Appellants are precluded from raising any such objection/plea at appeal stage, which they failed to raise specifically before Banking Court at the time of filing of leave to defend application.

Point not raised before Trial Court cannot be agitated before High Court in constitutional petition.

Raising of such plea is beyond the scope and is impermissible as per the law.

Plaintiffs failed to give any explanation for not taking up the pleas sought to be introduced through proposed amendments at the initial stage of trial

Application filed by plaintiffs was just a device to lead evidence through back door

Plaintiffs were not permitted to achieve indirectly which could not be achieved directly

Both the courts below had passed orders in accordance with law and plaintiffs failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity or that the courts had failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them

High Court refused to allow amendment in pleadings

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction partly dismissed the suit on the ground that vendees were co-sharers in the joint holding of land in question

Plea raised by vendees was that mutation of their being joint owners in Khata was admitted in evidence without any objection

Validity

Vendees never took up the defence of having purchased share in Khata and due to such reason no issue was framed

Such plea of being owners in joint Khata was never part of appeal or grounds of revision, therefore, only for such reason that vendees were able to produce in evidence a mutation could not be any advantage to them for claiming share on the basis of S.20 of North West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987

Though the mutation was admitted in evidence by Trial Court without any objection from vendees but the evidence which was brought on record by a litigant, even not subjected to objection by the opposing side and was outside the purview of his pleadings, the same could not be looked into by the court, rather should be ignored

High Court could not consider the mutation in question and grant relief to vendees which was not within the parameters of their defence

High Court committed grave illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction and the judgment could not be sustained in law

Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by High Court in favour of vendees

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioners in earlier round of litigation, had prayed that they be absorbed/appointed but their such prayer was declined by 'High Court as well as by Supreme Court

Subsequently, petitioners again filed constitutional petitions on the ground that they were not afforded opportunity to compete for induction nor the posts were advertised for recruitment, which petitions were also dismissed by High Court

Plea raised by petitioners was that after having undergone training for two years they had become regular in service and were entitled to be absorbed

Validity

Petitioners could not be permitted to plead different case than what they pleaded before High Court

Case of petitioners was different in constitutional petitions than what had been canvassed before Supreme Court

Petitioner having pursued their remedy before High Court. and Supreme Court for grievance of their appointment on expiry of their training period could not be permitted under law to come again with the same prayer before Supreme Court on some other pretext by concealing and suppressing earlier litigation having gone between the parties

Petitioners had conceded to undergo training for two years against fixed stipend with no guarantee or undertaking from respondent-Company for their absorption or appointment

Petitioners could not agitate the plea that they be absorbed and appointed considering also the fact that earlier also they were declined such relief

Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioners in earlier round of litigation, had prayed that they be absorbed/appointed but their such prayer was declined by High Court as well as by Supreme Court

Subsequently, petitioners again filed constitutional petitions on the ground that they were not afforded opportunity to compete for induction nor the posts were advertised for recruitment, which petitions were also dismissed by High Court

Plea raised by petitioners was that after having undergone training for two years they had become regular in service and were entitled to be absorbed

Validity

Petitioners could not be permitted to plead different case than what they pleaded before High Court

Case of petitioners was different in constitutional petitions than what had been canvassed before Supreme Court

Petitioner having pursued their remedy before High Court and Supreme Court for grievance of their appointment on expiry of their training period could not be permitted under law to come again with the same prayer before Supreme Court on some other pretext by concealing and suppressing earlier litigation having gone between the parties

Petitioners had conceded to undergo training for two years against fixed stipend with no guarantee or undertaking from respondent-Company for their absorption or appointment

Petitioners could not agitate the plea that they be absorbed and appointed considering also the fact that earlier also they were declined such relief

Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

- Litigant cannot be allowed to raise a different plea before the appellate forum, which was not agitated before the Courts below.

which were available to the Department having not been taken earlier could not be allowed to be taken for the first time before the Supreme Court.

Plea not raised and made ground of defence before Trial Court cannot be allowed to be raised in appeal.

Where question of non-execution of decree on account of being barred by limitation was not agitated before Executing Court, Supreme Court declined to allow such question, to be restrained circumstances.

Petitioners referred to the alleged mala fides on the part of the then official responsible for carrying into effect the process of law without any fear or favour but were not brought by the petitioners before the relevant/appropriate forum at that juncture

Validity

Supreme Court declined to upset that which was made the subject-matter of appropriate proceedings by the aggrieved persons/individuals in the past.

No party would be allowed to raise a plea which had not been taken in the plaint or written statement or where no issue had been framed pertaining to such plea.

New plea cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time before Supreme Court.

Other submissions made in support of petition already rejected by High Court on principles laid down by Supreme Court on the subject

Petitioner, held, could not be permitted to raise a totally fresh plea before Supreme Court-Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Point not pleaded before High Court or any of Courts below, not allowed to be raised for first time before Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

S. 29-New plea-Plea which could have been raised before Commissioner not raised before him but raised for first time: before High Court-Plea not allowed to be raised in Supreme Court.

Petitioner executing deed declaring land in suit allotted in his name in lieu of abandoned land in India to form part of estate of his father for devolution on all his heirs at time of his death-Petitioner; held, executed deed in lifetime of his father in favour of respondents with a view to set at rest conflicting claims to suit land by parties or to avoid future disputes concerning inheritance and thus embodied a bona fide family settlement arrived at between members for lawful consideration and fully binding on parties.

Party not permitted to raise new ground of attack or defence by departing from its previous pleadings.

Mixed question of law and fact (depending on consideration of series of facts) not pressed in Court below-Not allowed by Supreme Court to be raised in appeal before it.

O. XXVI-Appeal to Supreme Court-New plea-Point not taken at time of hearing of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal-Cannot be urged as a ground for review-Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art. 190.

New plea-Ordinarily not open to parties to raise a contention not pressed before Court from whose judgment appeal preferred

Question of law going to root of case may be permitted to be raised as an exception to rule but mixed question of law and fact cannot be allowed to be raised for first time in Letters Patent Appeal-Whether property had been partly converted into industrial concern ; extent of its conversion and effect of entitlement for its transfer under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958-A mixed question of law and fact-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched, para. 15(3) read with Press Note dated 3-5-60.

New cause of action accruing to litigant after disposal of suit-Cannot be used to disturb finding based on evidence available up to that time.

S. 115-New plea Ordinarily new grounds not allowed to be taken at revisional stage, nevertheless, questions, being purely, legal, permitted to be argued.

Such plea not to be allowed to be raised in appeal.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100-New plea-Point neither raised in lower Court nor mentioned in grounds of appeal-Cannot be allowed to be heard at tine of arguments.

-New plea-Point neither raised before trial Court nor taken in memo. of appeal-Allowed, nevertheless, to be argued in appeal same being nice point of law.

-New plea-Point of limitation can be taken in appeal-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100.