V. PRABHAKARA v. BASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR & Anr.

#3. Order VI of the Code while defining the word “pleading” makes it applicable on even terms to both a plaint and written statement. A relief can only be on the basis of the pleadings alone. Evidence is also to be based on such pleadings. The only exception would be when the parties know each other’s case very well and such a pleading is implicit in an issue. Additionally, a court can take judicial note of a fact when it is so apparent on the face of the record. [Para 20][386-F; 387-A-B]

#4. The first appellate court while exercising power under Section 96 can re-do the exercise of the trial court. However, such a power is expected to be exercised with caution. The reason A B C D E F G H 380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. being, the trial court alone has the pleasure of seeing the demeanor of the witness. In exercising such a power, the appellate court has to keep in mind the views of the trial court. If it finds that the trial court is wrong, its decision should be on the reasoning given. A mere substitution of views, without discussing the findings of the trial court, by the appellate court is not permissible. If two views are possible, it would only be appropriate to go with the view expressed by the trial court. While adopting reasoning in support of its findings, the appellate court is not expected to go on moral grounds alone. Though the first appellate court is the final court of fact and law, it has to fall in line with the scope and ambit of Section 96 of the Code. [Paras 21 and 23][388-D-F; 393-H]