1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule  2 - Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved - However, there is a pernicious tendency growing among counsel to apply superfluous gloss, use bombastic words, hyperbole and exaggeration in composing plaints, applications and petitions which do not qualify stricto sensu as pleadings - But neither parties nor the court should over react and waste energy on trifling matters unless the words and expressions are aimed at hitting below the belt, then such pleadings deserve to be discouraged and parties confined to facts of their respective cases. (175) P.L.R.
  2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule  4 - In order to establish the coercion, misrepresentation and fraud, it is essential requirement of law that the pleadings have to be in accordance with Order 6, Rule 4 CPC, but the pleadings are not sufficient. (180) P.L.R.
  3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule  4 - Person who approaches the Court has to discharge the onus vis-a-vis fraud and misrepresentation - Even otherwise, suit for mandatory injunction ex facie was not maintainable, remedy was to seek recovery by affixation of court-fee.  (183) P.L.R.
  4. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule  4 - Rules of pleadings under order 6 Rule 4 which would require every aspect of fraud to be pleaded is a recognition of yet another procedure of law namely the law of evidence that places the burden on the defendant to set out and prove the vitiating circumstances - If the plea in defence is forgery such as when the defendant pleads that his signatures was on the blank paper, the burden of proof was only on the plaintiff - The rule of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 4 may not even apply to a defendant in such a case if the plea is forgery. (179) P.L.R.
  5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule  6 - Replication - That new new plea could not be raised in the replication cannot be accepted because purpose of filing the replication is to respond to the new pleas taken by defendants in their written statement - As regards right of defendants to file rejoinder, they never made any such request to the trial court to grant them an opportunity to file rejoinder - If they had made any such request, only then they could have raised this grievance, if the same had been declined by the trial Court. (173) P.L.R. 3
  6. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule  6A - Suit and counter-claim are to be treated as two suits and if two suits, filed by the parties against each other pertaining to the same property/subject matter involving same questions were heard and decided by the Court by a common judgment, then the status of judgment in the counter-claim would be treated as independent decree - In view of the discussion above a appeal filed against one of the decree would not be sustainable and other decree which remains unchallenged will operate as res-judicata, (182) P.L.R.
  7. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 11 - Have not given up the claim for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question but have rather claimed the relief of mandatory injunction in the alternative - The said fact is evident from the application moved - Allowed - No ground for interference. (174) P.L.R.
  8. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 12 - From the perusal of the previous zimni orders, it is evident that the petitioner had submitted the list of witnesses for effecting the service - However, despite service, none appeared, the trial Court, in my view, ought not to have closed the evidence without resorting to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 12 CPC - In essence, the trial Court should have summoned them by issuing bailable warrants. (180) P.L.R.
  9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 14 - Fact that the 1st plaintiff alone had signed beneath the body of the plaint is not denied - It is also admitted that the verification has also been made only by the 1st plaintiff - While subscribing signatures of all the parties in the body of the plaint is mandated by Rule 14 CPC, the verification requirement is fulfilled by the signatures of any one of the parties to the pleadings - Therefore, the fact that the pleadings were verified by only one of the plaintiffs is not a defect in the presentation - No difficulty in seeing that the plaint was not properly filed as regards plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, by the fact that the 1st plaintiff was a co-owner whose capacity as co-owner was not denied by the other co-owners, 1st plaintiff's own right to institute the suit in his own name could not have failed. (174) P.L.R.
  10. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 14 - Plaint was signed by the Advocate - Application filed for permitting him to sign the written statement already filed and also to file affidavit in support - There was no objection raised by the plaintiff at any stage as the entire evidence of the plaintiff was concluded - The witnesses produced by him were even cross-examined by the petitioner/defendant No.1 - As claimed by the petitioner, the error was noticed when defendant No.1 was to lead his evidence - Immediately thereafter, the application was filed to rectify the defect - After the defect was pointed out by respondent No.1/plaintiff, neither there was delay in filing the application for correction of the error nor the act of the petitioner/defendant No.1 can be said to be deliberate or mischievous - Order of the Court below dismissing the application - Set aside. (179) P.L.R.
  11. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 16 - Non-filing of amended plaint - Suit could not have been dismissed even if amended plaint was not placed on record it should have proceeded on the original plaint. (174) P.L.R.