A court can’t grant relief not explicitly claimed in plaint: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that mere jotting down a boilerplate prayer that “any other relief which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper may also be granted” is not sufficient for justifying unclaimed relief unless it is, from top to bottom, harmonious with the facts and evidence already on the record.

“The general rule in civil law is that a court cannot grant a relief that has not been explicitly claimed in the plaint,” said a three-member bench judgment, which heard a petition against the Lahore High Court (LHC) judgment. The bench set aside the LHC impugned judgment rendered in Regular First Appeal (RFA), and the Banking Court’s order to the extent of allowing markup by means of amended decree.

The judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, said: “Order VII, Rule 7 ofthe Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, commands that a plaint should explicitly state the relief claimed, which indeed wards off the defendant from being taken by surprise, as he can only defend what has been formally alleged in the lawsuit. If a relief is not claimed, the Court deduces that it has been abandoned by the plaintiff under Order II, Rule 2 of CPC,” it added.

According to the case, the petitioner (M/s. Crescent Spinning Mills Ltd) availed financial facilities from the respondent No. 1 (Citibank) during 1990-1995; however, they could not repay the dues in line with the agreed schedule. The respondent No.1 filed a suit (under the provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984) for the recovery of a sum of Rs76,241,234.68/- before the Banking Court/Lahore High Court on 13.11.1995. Application for leave to defend was dismissed, and the suit was decreed on 15.10.1999.

The petitioner filed anRFA before the LHC against the judgment and decree, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 07.02.2019.

The Supreme Court noted that the pivotal point before the Appellate Court was whether the Banking Court (single judge of the Lahore High Court) could grant the Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA) filed by respondent No.1 under Section 152 of CPC for praying amendment in decree dated 15.10.1999 for adding markup from the date of institution of the suit till actual realization of the decretal amount which application was allowed and decree was amended accordingly.

Itobserved that the Appellate Court held that the single judge of the LHC (acting as Banking Court) had omitted to award markup as envisioned under Section 15 of the Act of 1997; therefore, the decree was rightly amended with the aid of Section 152 CPC.

Furthermore, it was held that under Order XLI, Rule 33 CPC, the Appellate Court has power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court not with standing that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection.

Finally, it was held that even if the amendment of decree had not been allowed by the single judge, the Appellate Court could have amended the decree so as to include the amount of markup under Section 15 of the 1997 Act.

The SC judgment maintained that the Appellate Court, under Order XLI, Rule 33 of CPC, to do complete justice between the parties may modify, adjust, or completely rewrite the order, judgment and decree and may pass any order or judgment which the trial court ought to have passed, but it cannot invent altogether a new case or a cause of action that was never pleaded in the Trial Court.

The judgment noted that in the instant matter the prayer of the respondent No.1 clearly reflects that it was without any claim of markup, which means they omitted such relief in their plaint. It, therefore, said: “The Appellate Court can only grant alternate or modified relief if essential facts in the pleadings are already present and complementary to the overall case nature without contradicting statutory law.”

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026