Such other further reliefs

Such other further reliefs

           While drafting pleading, in civil and other matters it is necessary to follow the rules of pending enumerated in Civil Procedure Code and other rules as applicable to each category of matters. Every pleading would end with a prayer with an inevitable tail piece praying ‘for such other consequential reliefs’ or ‘for such other and further relief either in law or in equity as the court deems just and proper’. Otherwise it is considered as not proper pleading. The seniors would say it is like safety clause or omnibus clause.

 The US based Attorney would say that it is the "kitchen sink" claim. Lawyers include every fact, point of law and circumstances favouring the client’s claim and include all possible form of reliefs in their plaint or appeal, which may sometimes run beyond hundreds of pages long. The Lawyers add a clause in the pleadings to cover up any technical deficiency in seeking appropriate relief. This prayer, though ambiguous and vague, yet serves as all embracing. Any relief that the party then seeks at trial is encompassed by the pleadings.

               The object of this hyper vigilant prayer is to save the party at trial and to lead any evidence that might encompass a request for relief outside of the remainder of the pleadings. This care is exceeding difficulty in the midst of trial, especially when the offered evidence might be relevant on other issues.

It is for the judge to determine that something is needed during a hearing or trial that was not totally addressed by the pleadings. This clause enables Court to go ahead and award that relief, though not specifically asked for. If the Court makes an order to do something or not do something and the other party does not abide by the Court's ruling; the Court can compel the other party to comply with the Court's order along with costs etc that the Court may impose as it deems appropriate.

Habitually this last clause is used as catch all phrase which enables the court for any additional relief or orders as they come up by the time the case reaches the stage of judgment. It is a reservoir type of language that is adopted in pleadings.

The Courts in India function not only as Court of justice but also function as Court of equity, which in inherent in its power. This court of equity allows party to receive non-monetary relief like custody, parenting time, etc. The court has the authority to award relief that Court may deem fair and equitable, even if neither party requested for it.

It is not asking the Court to limit its authority only to whatever pleaded and relief sought for but also for something more when situation so warrants. It is standard language that Lawyers routinely include in their papers. This phrase often gives the judge the ability and flexibility to award something which the judge believes is fair, but which the party forgot to ask for in the pleadings. So this is a catch-all phrase which gives the judge to award other relief, if necessary. This general request is intended to protect a party who may have forgotten to request certain relief which might be advantageous at the final hearing and allows the court the flexibility to provide relief not specifically prayed for in the plaint or appeal memo.

In the case of Dukhan Ram & ors. vs Ram Nanda Singh & ors. [dt.30.3.1961, AIR 1961 Pat 425, 1961 CriLJ 662] the Patna High Court referring to the term ‘further relief’ as used in section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and section 7 of Court Fee Act held that relief must be asked for as incidental to the declaratory decree.

It is well settled that the "further relief mentioned in the Proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, must be "other relief" against the defendant himself against whom the declaration is sought. The words "further relief in Section 42 of the Act, refer to some relief to which the plaintiff will be necessarily entitled to on the basis of the title declared. If the plaintiff will not be so entitled, the relief will not be "further relief within the meaning of Section 42 of the Act, and the suit will not then come within the mischief of the proviso to Section 42 of the Act, on the ground of the plaintiff having omitted to ask for such relief.

The word "consequential relief', in Sub-clause (c) of Clause (iv) of Section 7, Court-fees Act, also may be taken to refer to a relief of the above description, In other words, the relief must be such that it will constitute "further relief within the meaning of Section 42 of the Act. A "consequential relief, within the meaning of Section 7 (iv) (c), Court-fees Act, besides being a "further relief, within the meaning of Section 42 of the Act, however, must fulfill another condition. The relief must be asked for as incidental to the declaratory decree.

Section 7 (iv) (c), Court-fees Act, contemplates a suit in which the declaratory decree is the main, basic relief and the "further relief" is asked for only as incidental to it. The two reliefs must be asked for as One joint and indivisible relief so that if the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, refuses to pass a declaratory decree, the claim for "further relief" also will fall with it. It is only in cases in which the "further relief" is asked for on this footing that the suit will come under Sub-clause (c) of Clause (iv) of Section 7, Court-fees Act, and not otherwise.

Therefore, though "consequential relief, within the meaning of Section 7 (iv) (c), Court-fees Act, will be "further relief" for the purposes of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act also, but, what would be "further relief, within ths meaning of Section 42 of the Act, will not necessarily be "consequential relief" within the meaning of Section 7 (iv) (c), Court-fees Act, for the simple reason, that in order to come under Sub-clause (c) of Clause (iv) of Section 7, Court-fees Act, the suit must aim at a single, composite relief, in which the main and basic part will" consist of a declaratory decree and the "further relief will only form an adjunct to it, to be granted or refused along with it, and, not independently of it. Hence, the mere fact that a certain relief flows from the right declared will not ipso facto make it "consequential relief" within the meaning of Section 7 (iv) (c), Court-fees Act: see, for instance, [Kalu Ram v. Babu Lal, AIR 1932 All 485; ILR 54 All 812 FB]

     In these circumstances, it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to ask for 'further relief', in the shape of recovery of possession, or, in the alternative, for confirmation of possession, because they claimed, although that claim is not maintainable in law or on facts, that they were, in the eye of law, in constructive possession, through the Magistrate, or, even for an injunction, or, whatever other form of the appropriate consequential relief they thought would be on the facts here.

Article authored by

Prof V Narayana Swamy

High Court Advocate

Bangalore 560019