When Variance between pleadings in plaint and evidence adduced can be ignored?

Or. 6 and Or. 18 - Pleadings and proof - Variance between pleadings in plaint and evidence adduced - When can be
ignored - When variance does not cause prejudice to defendant, and does not take him by any kind of surprise, no
credence need be given to the same, (2013) 2 SCC 606-C 

Gian Chand and Bros. v. Rattan Lal, (2013) 2 SCC 606



 Or. 8 Rr. 3, 4 & 5, Or. 14 R. 3 and Or. 18 R. 3 - Obligation of defendant to deal with each allegation in plaint - Evasive
denials by defendant on allegations in plaint - Effect of - Held, defendant must specifically deal with each and every
allegation of fact in plaint - General denial of facts alleged in plaint is not sufficient - When nothing is specifically pleaded
in written statement as against averments in plaint, defendant is not entitled to lead any evidence on those issues -
Assertion of appellant-plaintiffs as to acknowledgment of receipt of a certain amount by respondent-defendant under
signature of respondent-defendant in books of account of appellants proved by witnesses, and written statement was
evasive in respect of this assertion - Effect - Trial court decreed money suit of appellant-plaintiffs - High Court setting
aside decree and holding that onus of proving signatures in books of account of plaintiffs not discharged by examining
handwriting expert and on ground that there was variance between averments pleaded in plaint and evidence adduced -
Sustainability - Plaintiffs proved signatures of defendant by examining witnesses and marked them as exhibits without
any objection from defendant - Despite averments in plaint that defendant had given acknowledgment of amount under
his signature in the corresponding entry in books of accounts (bahi) of plaintiffs, except making bald denial of said
averments, defendant did not specifically deny signatures - Only at stage of examination-in-chief, did defendant dispute
signatures, but in cross-examination deposed evasively that he did not remember having signed at the time of purchase -
Hence, attempt to make out a case that defendant was not aware of signatures; held, is not permissible as nothing was
pleaded in respect thereof in written statement - Further, there was no plea of any kind of forgery or fraud - Thus, High
Court erred in holding that appellant-plaintiffs did not discharge burden of proving signatures - Further, variance between
pleadings and evidence of plaintiffs observed by High Court was minor, and which does not cause prejudice to defendant
- Furthermore, books of accounts maintained by plaintiff firm in regular course of business cannot be rejected in absence
of any rebuttal of presumption of their veracity - Hence, held, interference of High Court unwarranted - Decree of trial
court restored, (2013) 2 SCC 606-A 
 Evidence Act, 1872 
 Ss. 101, 102 and 106 - Burden of proof - Onus lies on person asserting a particular fact to affirmatively establish it -
Assertion of plaintiff as to acknowledgment of amount under signature of defendant proven by witnesses, and evasive
reply by defendant in written statement - Effect, (2013) 2 SCC 606-B 
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 
 Or. 6 and Or. 18 - Pleadings and proof - Variance between pleadings in plaint and evidence adduced - When can be
ignored - When variance does not cause prejudice to defendant, and does not take him by any kind of surprise, no
credence need be given to the same, (2013) 2 SCC 606-C 
 Evidence Act, 1872 
 Ss. 34, 16, 45 and 114 Ill. (f) - Entries made in regular course of business - Evidentiary value of - Held, books of
accounts maintained in regular course of business should not be rejected without reason or rebuttal of presumption of
their veracity, (2013) 2 SCC 606-D

Print Page