What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. It is apt to refer to a decision of a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Nalini Sunder v. GV Sunder, AIR 2003 Kar 86. It was held, a party could not make out a case on basis of evidence for which he/she has laid no foundation in pleadings. It is fairly settled, no amount of evidence can prove a case of a party who had not set up same in his/her pleadings, it was further held. According to us, it is correct.

In absence of any specific provisions dealing with non-filing of written statements/forfeiture of right to file a written statement, it can only be held, it should bar an opposite party in a proceeding before Consumer Redressal Forums to bring in pleadings indirectly to introduce its/his case and evidence to support such case. In such a situation, right of an opposite party is confined to participation in proceedings without filing a written statement and to cross-examine witness(es), if any, examined by complainant(s).

– Hon’ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited, [Civil Appeal No. 8176 of 2022] decided on 22.07.2024.

_____

It is trite, Court cannot traverse beyond pleadings and make out a case which was never pleaded, such principle having originated from the legal maxim: ‘secundum allegata et probate’. Court, will arrive at its decision on basis of claims and proof led by parties.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 19647-48 of 2022] decided on 22.07.2024.