(a)the name of the court and date of filing the plaint;
(b)the name, description, and place of residence of the plaintiff;
(c)the name, description, and the place of residence of the defendant so far as the same can be ascertained;
(d)a plain and concise statement of the circumstances constituting each cause of action, and where and when it arose. Such statement shall be set forth in duly numbered paragraphs; and where two or morecauses of action are set out, the statement of the circumstances constituting each cause of action must be separate, and numbered;
(e)a demand of the relief which the plaintiff claims; and
(f)if the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount so allowed or relinquished.
If the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint must state the precise amount, so far as the case admits. In an action for a specific chattel, or to establish, recover, or enforce any right, status, or privilege, or for mesne profits, or for the amount which will be found due to the plaintiff on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, the plaint need only state approximately the value of the chattel, right, status, or privilege, or the amount sued for.
No action can be maintain in between partners without having a written agreement when the capital is exceeded Rs. 1000/=
Pate Vs. Pate (18 N.L.R. 289) (Privy Council)
In a partnership action, the admission of his answer of the existence of the partnership by a defendant does not prevent him from setting up by way of defence the Ordinance of Frauds and Perjuries where the agreement is not in writing and the capital of the partnership is over Rs. 1000/=
Abeygoonasekera Vs. Mendis (18 N.L.R. 449)
The application to amend the plaint in an action for libel, for the purpose of setting out the libel which was in English, was refused.
In appeal the Court held that,
(i)forms of the plaint given in the schedule to the Civil Procedure Code are what one may call a specimen or an example of the outward form as distinct from content or matter. The relevant form requires the plaintiff to set out the libel in the foreign language.
(ii)form of the plaint can never affect the cause of action or have any bearing on it as such, because the cause of action is the fact or facts averred in the plaint which gives the plaintiff the right to judicial relief and in holding that because the form of the plaint had not been adhered to the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, the learned District Judge had manifestly erred.
(iii)by appending/annexing the relevant publication to the original plaint, the plaintiff-appellant had already set out this as he has produced or set out the publication as an exhibit whilst pleading in the body of the plaint. A translation of this publication alleged to be defamatory is given in the body of the plaint.
Anthony Vs. Weerasinghe (2000 (2) S.L.R. 212)
In an action for damages for the reasons of defamation, it is necessary to include the defamatory words verbatin or words substantially the same. If not the plaint is defective. The defendant must not be deprived of knowing the defamatory statements alleged to have been published by him to formulate a proper defence.
John Fernando and Attorney-General Vs. Satarasinghe (2002 (2) S.L.R. 113)
(i)Liability of the guarantors arise only if and when a demand is made (Guarantee Bond Clause 12 (2) upon the termination of the contract.
(ii)There ought to be an averment in the plaint that the demand was made (consequent to such termination) and that such demand was not honoured.
(iii)Termination of the contract and the demand made on the hirer will not help the plaintiff to invoke jurisdiction of Court against the guarantors.
L.B. Finance Ltd. Vs. Manchanayake (2000 (2) S.L.R. 142)
The plaintiff in the capacity of the administrator of the estate of the deceased filed action against the defendant seeking declaration of title, ejectment and monthly damages. The defendant pleaded that he entered in to the premises as a tenant under the original owner and prayed for dismissal of the action. He further took up the position that there is no cause of action disclosed against him.
At the trial plaintiff framed issues no 5 as follows.
“As averred in paragraph 5 of the amended plaint, is the defendant, from 1.9.1993, causing loss and damage to the plaintiff by being in wrongful and unlawful possession of the premises described in the 2nd schedule to the amended plaint which forms a part of the land described in the 1st schedule to the plaint?”
The defendant objected to the issue on the ground that the plaint did not disclose the date on which the defendant entered the property and the date on which the defendant started to possess the property adverse to the plaintiff. By not setting out the date on which the cause of action arose and the manner in which it arose the plaintiff had failed to comply with the provisions of section 40 of Civil Procedure Code.
Trial Judge upheld the objection and rejected the issue No.5. In appeal the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff had claimed damages from a particular date and that was the date on which the cause of action arose.
Amaratunga J. held that;
1.The Court cannot infer the date on which the cause of action arose.
2.Therefore the fact that the plaintiff had claimed damages from a particular date does not necessarily mean that the cause of action also arose from that date.
3.The claim in the defendant’s answer that the original owner let the premises to him is also significant. If the defendant entered and occupied the premises as a tenant and if the plaintiff filed the present action in the present form to circumvent the rent laws, he cannot naturally set out the manner in which the defendant first entered the premises. If he gives true particulars, the real nature of the defendant’s occupation can come to light, creating problems for the plaintiff.
4.In the absence of a specific averment setting out the ‘circumstances constituting the cause of action and where and when it arose’ the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting issue No. 5.
Don Gamini Nanayakkara Vs. Percy Fernando (C.A.L.A. 345/2001, D.C. Colombo 16467/L, C.A. minute dated 14.6.2004)
No comments:
Post a Comment