1. AIR 2012 SC 264---"No relief can be granted by the courts, if not found in
pleadings" (2010) 11 SCC 557--"No relief can be granted by the courts, if not
specifically asked for by the parties"
The Respective Case Notes:
1.Citation : AIR 2012 SC 264
Subject: Property
Decided On: 05.09.2011
The National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Ors.
Case Note:
Tenancy - Vacation of Premises - Maintainability of Suit questioned Exemption
sought on the ground that agent cannot be sued where the Principal is known
Held, it is a settled legal proposition that an agent cannot be sued where the
principal is known - In the instant case however, the Appellant has not taken
plea before either of the Courts below - In view of the provisions of Order VIII,
Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellant was under an obligation to take a
specific plea to show that the suit was not maintainable which it failed to do so
- Vague plea to the extent that the suit was bad for non-joinder and, held to be
as not maintainable - Appellant ought to have taken a plea in the written
statement that it was merely an agent of the Central Government, thus the suit
against it was not maintainable - More so, whether A is an agent of B is a
question of fact and has to be properly pleaded and proved by adducing
evidence - Appellant miserably failed to take the required pleadings for the
purpose - Thus, in view of the above, Appellant held to be as not entitled for
exemption under Section 3(1)(a) or 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999 nor can it claim the status of an agent of the Central Government.

2. 2. Subject : Property
Citation: (2010)11SCC557
Decided On: 03.06.2010
Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. Vs. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. and Ors.
Case note:
Administrative Law--Governance--Legality--Held--No Higher authority in the
hierarchy or an appellate or revisional authority can exercise the power of
Statutory authority--Superior authority cannot direct the statutory authority to
act in a particular manner and if so, such direction or order remains
unenforceable. [Para--22]
Civil Law--Administration of Justice--Scope--Held--Any order passed by any
authority in spite of knowledge of the interim order of court is of no
consequence as it remains a nullity. [Para--28]
Civil Law--Granting of relief--Validity--Held--Court cannot grant a relief which
has not been specifically prayed by the parties. [Para--33]
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973--Section 41-- Clause(1)--
Revisional authority-- Powers--Held--Revisional authority can exercise its
jurisdiction only for examining legality or propriety of an existing order or
direction. [Para--35 and 36]
Condonation of Delay--Validity--Held--In absence of application of mind
condoning the delay will amount to vulnerable exercise of powers. [Para--41
and 42]

3. Constitution of India, 1950--Article 26--Process of Court--Status-- Held--Filing
totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of process of court and
disentitles the party to any relief. [Para--47 and 49]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-- Section 12--Scope under--Held-- Parties
misleading the court by not disclosing the true facts may be liable for criminal
contempt of court. [Para--52]
Respective Extract From the Judgememt:
In Trojan & Co. v. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar MANU/SC/0005/1953 : AIR 1953
SC 235, this Court considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a party
could be granted and that too without having proper pleadings. The Court held as
under:
It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the
pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an
amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for
and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an
alternative case.
30. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly etc.
etc. v. University of Lucknow and Ors. etc. MANU/SC/0063/1983 : AIR 1984 SC
186; and Om Prakash and Ors. v. Ram Kumar and Ors. MANU/SC/0101/1991 :
AIR 1991 SC 409, observing that a party cannot be granted a relief which is not
claimed.
31. Dealing with the same issue, this Court in Bharat Amratlal
Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Ors. MANU/SC/1799/2009 : AIR
2010 SC 475 held:
Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the court, however,
cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief,
grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.
32. In Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Sarat Chandra Rath and
Ors. MANU/SC/0693/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 2744, this Court held that "the High Court
ought not to have granted reliefs to the respondents which they had not even prayed
for."

4. 33. In view of the above, law on the issue can be summarised that the Court cannot
grant a relief which has not been specifically prayed by the parties.