Facts pleaded in plaint differ from those proved in evidence. Effect on suit?

The Foundation: Pleadings as the Boundary of the Case

The purpose of pleadings, as Order VI, Rule 2 makes clear, is not a mere formality. The plaint must contain a concise statement of the material facts — those facts which the plaintiff must prove to establish his cause of action. These material facts define the arena of combat. They tell the defendant what case he has to meet. They enable the court to identify precisely what is in issue. They prevent deviation from the course which the litigation must take. As the Supreme Court observed in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (AIR 2010 SC 1103), the object and purpose of pleadings is to ensure that litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases from being expanded or grounds shifted during the trial. This foundational purpose is violated, directly and seriously, when the facts proved at trial differ from those alleged in the plaint.

The General Rule: No Proof Without Pleading

The principle is categorical: no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. If a material fact is not pleaded, no issue can be raised on it, and a party cannot lead evidence on it without first amending the pleading. Where the evidence led at trial introduces or establishes a case which has no foundation in the pleadings, that evidence is to be disregarded. The court cannot make out a new case for the plaintiff which the plaintiff himself has not made out in his plaint — this was firmly stated by the Supreme Court and has been consistently followed. The pleadings of the parties form the foundation of their case and it is simply not open to them to abandon the case set out in the pleadings and propound a new and different one at trial.

The Doctrine Explained: A Vivid Example

The danger of allowing proof to travel beyond pleadings was vividly captured by the courts. As one authoritative ruling put it, it is impossible to conclude parties by inferences of fact which are not only inconsistent with the allegations found in the plaint — which constitute the case the defendant has to meet — but which are in reality contradictory of the case made by the plaintiff. To permit a final determination to be founded upon inferences at variance with what was pleaded would introduce the greatest amount of uncertainty into judicial proceedings. The rule is essentially about fairness: the defendant prepares his defence on the basis of what the plaint alleges; if the case shifts during trial to a different set of facts, he is taken by surprise, and that is unjust.

The Effect on the Suit

The legal consequences are serious but graduated. Where the variance is between a cardinal, essential fact and what is proved, the consequence is that the suit must fail. If a plaintiff pleads title by purchase and evidence establishes title only by inheritance — two different legal bases — the court cannot decree the suit on the basis of the proved fact, since the case that the defendant was called to answer was entirely different. Similarly, where a plaintiff pleads adverse possession and fails to prove it, he cannot succeed on a title based on inheritance which was never pleaded, and vice versa. The rule operates with particular stringency when it comes to allegations of fraud, undue influence, or misrepresentation — here the courts have insisted that the specific facts constituting the fraud must be pleaded, and where one kind of fraud is charged and fails, another kind cannot be substituted for it.

When Variance May Be Overlooked

The rule is not absolute, and the courts have, with characteristic pragmatism, carved out spaces for justice. Where the variance between pleading and proof relates to a subordinate or peripheral fact, and not to a cardinal issue, it may be overlooked. More importantly, where both parties go to trial with full knowledge that a particular fact is in issue — even though not specifically pleaded — and both sides lead evidence on it without objection, the court may decide the case on that basis. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where parties were fully aware of the controversy, proceeded to trial and adduced evidence, it would be artificial to throw out the finding merely because the specific plea was not in the pleadings. This is particularly true where no prejudice has been caused to the other side. As the Supreme Court confirmed, when a variance between pleadings and evidence occurs but the variance does not cause prejudice to the defendant and does not take him by any kind of surprise, it need not be given any credence.

The Role of Amendment

The proper remedy, when a plaintiff realises during trial that the facts he needs to prove differ from those he has pleaded, is to seek an amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17. Courts are generally liberal in allowing amendments before evidence is recorded, and even during trial if it would not cause irreversible prejudice to the other side. If no amendment is sought and the evidence goes beyond the pleadings, the court is within its rights — indeed, it is the court's duty — to refuse to act upon such evidence on the unpleaded points. The famous adage from the law of pleadings puts it succinctly: proof without pleading is of no relevance. A point not raised in any of the courts below cannot even be taken before the Supreme Court.

Variance as a Ground in Second Appeal

A complete variance between pleadings and proof is itself recognised as a substantial question of law capable of being taken up in second appeal. Where there is a complete divergence between what was pleaded and what was proved, the findings of the courts below based on such proof can be disturbed in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code, since the very basis upon which those findings rest is legally unsound. This shows how seriously procedural law treats the discipline of keeping evidence confined within the bounds of pleadings — it is not merely a technicality but a principle of the highest juridical importance, going to the integrity of the entire trial.