What is Plea. Plea is an assertion of a fact in a legal proceeding; and
would also include such pleas constituting the principal grounds on the basis
of which a claim is laid or a relief is prayed for in the Court of law. What is
dissection. According to Blacks dictionary, the act of separating into
constituent parts, for the purpose of its critical examination. So, I will be dissecting
the legal expression “Plea”.
A Plea is an assertion of a material fact, and sometimes, an assertion of
an argument or sometimes the crux of the whole case of the Party advancing the
Plea.
In my understanding of things, a Plea/Fact is always composed of two
things, one, the legality of the Plea and two, the truthfulness/falsity of the
Plea. Any and every assertion of material fact, must have legal sanctity, that
is to say, the assertion of a material fact or assertion of any argument must
be legally sustainable. And if such assertion of fact is not legally
sustainable, there is no occasion to examine such “fact” as to its truthfulness
/ falsity, that is to say, there is no occasion to enter into the exercise of
leading evidence to prove/disprove that fact.
The organic point which I am trying to develop and convey is - every Plea /
material fact, before it is examined for its truthfulness/falsity, must be
tested at the touchstone of its legality. If the asserted Plea / material fact
is legally sustainable, then of course, if it is disputed, must be examined at
the threshold of standards of legal evidence/merits.
The heart of the submission is - the “Legal sustainability of a
Plea/Fact/case” is one thing and the “truthfulness / falsity of a Plea/Fact”,
is another; as the former is examined, and is decided at the altar of
established principles of interpretation of law / on the premise of precedents
(doctrine of stare decisis); and the latter is examined, tested and is decided
on the basis of evidences being led. And if the former is not legally
sustainable, there is no occasion for the Courts to go for the latter.
The submission is - a right or a litigation which is sought to be
prosecuted, or a defense which is advanced, must be legally sustainable, before
it is sought to be decided at the touchstone of evidence or otherwise. [AIR
2017 Civil Cases 3057]
The Courts, it is observed, are quite reluctant in dismissing / deciding
the legal proceedings, at the threshold, ordinarily on the grounds that the
“Plea” agitated is a mixed question of law and fact, and unless evidences are
led, the Courts cannot record any findings in that behalf.
The submission is - every Plea / Fact can be tested of its legality,
independent of its truthfulness / falsity; and the argument by the Counsels and
the Courts, that “the Issue involves mixed question of law and fact, and cannot
be decided at the threshold”, is totally misconceived.
The Legality of a Plea can be tested in CPC, at - Order VII Rule 11(a) and
(d), Order X, Order XIV Rules 1 and 2; in CrPC, Sections 190 when the Court
takes cognizance of an offence, Sections 200 at the examination of the
Complainant and his witnesses, in the discharge provisions like Sections 227,
239 and 245, in Bail provisions like 437, 438 and 439, and of course in Section
482. In fact, the legality of a Plea / fact can be examined and tested at the
threshold in every litigation and in particularly every summary jurisdiction
tribunals.
Let us look at a illustration. Suppose a Person files a Suit, claiming
possession of an (benami) immovable property, on the grounds that he has paid
the entite consideration for the purchase of said immovable property.
Therefore, the Plea is “since I have
paid the entire consideration, I am entitled for possession”. Ordinarily,
the law confers such right, and a person can claim possession of an immovable
property, for which he has paid the consideration. But the Benami law expressly
prohibits such right.
Therefore, before entering into “finding of fact exercise of
evidence” as to whether the Plaintiff proves paying of entire
consideration, the Courts should, as a matter of course, should examine the
legal sustainability of a claim.
Let us look at another illustration. A Person files a Criminal Complaint
alleging commission of an office. Every offence is composed of certain specific
ingredients, that is to say, certain overt acts and omissions, the combination
of which is regarded as the “commission of that offence”. The said person in
supportof his complaint,alleges certain facts, thereby
attributing commission of an offence. The Courts, therefore, before
embarking upon finding out whether the allegations of facts, are true or false,
should examine whether the facts alleged, satisfies the requirements of
ingredients of the offence. If the facts alleged, even if taken as true, does
not satisfies the requirement of ingredient of the offence, there is no
occasion for the Courts to take cognizance of the offence.
Sandeep Jalan
Advocate
Law
Referencer: https://www.litigationplatform.com/
Comments