The Dynamic Interplay of Pleadings and Issues in Civil Litigation: An Analysis of Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai and its Enduring Limitations

I. Introduction

Civil litigation in any jurisdiction is fundamentally structured around the articulation and resolution of disputes. This process formally commences with the presentation of pleadings, which typically include the plaint (the plaintiff's statement of claim), the written statement (the defendant's formal response), and sometimes a replication.¹ These foundational documents are meticulously designed to set forth the factual and legal basis of each party's case, thereby establishing the initial parameters of the controversy. Distinct from these formal statements are the "issues," which represent the precise points of fact or law that are genuinely disputed by the parties. The framing of these issues by the court is a critical procedural step, as it serves to guide the subsequent trial, directing the parties on what evidence to present and focusing the court's ultimate adjudication.¹

Historically, legal systems, particularly those rooted in common law, placed immense emphasis on pleadings to meticulously narrow issues. Early common law, with its rigid "forms of action" and iterative pleading, often led to cases being dismissed on technicalities if the pleadings did not perfectly align with a specific legal theory.⁵ However, modern civil procedure has largely evolved to prioritize substantive justice over strict procedural formalism, aiming for cases to be decided on their merits rather than being derailed by technical imperfections.⁵

It is within this evolving procedural landscape that the landmark Privy Council decision of Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai 64 NLR 25 (PC) at page 27 articulated a fundamental principle: "…a case must be tried upon the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to the court to depend and it is well settled that the framing of such issues is not restricted by the pleadings….".³ This dictum is profoundly significant, as it highlights the court's inherent and proactive responsibility to identify the true controversies underlying a dispute, even if those controversies are not perfectly or exhaustively articulated in the parties' initial formal pleadings. It signals a crucial departure from rigid adherence to the four corners of the pleadings, empowering the court to look beyond mere formal averments.

This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of this pivotal principle within the context of Sri Lankan civil procedure. It will delve into its statutory foundation, explore its judicial interpretation through subsequent case law, and critically examine the essential limitations and restrictions that govern the court's power in framing issues beyond the pleadings. The overarching aim is to illuminate how this principle serves to balance procedural formality with the imperative of achieving substantive justice and effective adjudication in civil litigation. The inherent tension between the formal function of pleadings and the substantive goal of issue framing becomes apparent when considering this principle. Pleadings are designed to initiate a case and outline claims and defenses.¹ Yet, the

Bank of Ceylon principle asserts that the framing of issues is not strictly confined by these very pleadings.⁸ This demonstrates that the legal system acknowledges that parties' initial formal statements might not always capture the full breadth or true nature of the underlying dispute. The court, therefore, retains the authority to refine and expand the scope of the trial as necessary. This procedural flexibility signifies a jurisprudential movement from a purely adversarial model, where parties strictly define the battleground, to a more truth-seeking model, where the court actively ensures the "right decision" is reached, even if it requires looking beyond the parties' initial procedural boundaries. This underscores the judiciary's ultimate responsibility for ensuring justice, which may, at times, necessitate overriding strict adherence to procedural technicalities.

II. The Foundational Principle: Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai

The principle that the framing of issues is not restricted by pleadings finds its prominent expression in Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai. Understanding the factual and procedural context of this case is essential to appreciate the significance of Lord Devlin's pronouncement.

Background of the Case: Facts and Procedural Context

The case concerned a hypothecary action initiated by the Bank of Ceylon based on a second mortgage bond.⁸ A key defense raised by the respondent was a point of pleading: the plaint only referenced the second (accessory) mortgage bond, omitting any mention of the first (principal) bond. Furthermore, it erroneously stated that the personal covenant to repay was contained in the second bond, when it was in fact solely contained in the first. The second bond merely provided further security for the existing debt.⁸ The respondent's argument was that no claim for the payment of money could be made on the second deed alone.⁸ The Privy Council, in its judgment, clarified that for a hypothecary action, the plaintiff primarily needed to prove only the validity of the second bond (which granted the land as security) and the existence of the secured debt. How the debt was created (i.e., through the first bond) was deemed immaterial for this specific purpose, and thus, the first bond was not considered an essential part of the cause of action. It could, therefore, be produced in evidence to prove the debt even without being explicitly pleaded.⁸

Deconstructing Lord Devlin's Dictum: "Framing of Issues Not Restricted by Pleadings"

The seminal statement from Lord Devlin, though appearing as obiter dictum (a remark made in passing, not essential to the core legal decision of the case), holds profound significance in civil procedure. It directly references Section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of Sri Lanka, which grants the court ample power to frame issues.⁸ The dictum means that the court's fundamental duty to identify the true points of contention (issues) for a just resolution is not rigidly confined by the precise wording, scope, or even omissions within the parties' initial pleadings (the plaint and answer).³ This empowers the court to delve beyond formal averments to ascertain the actual dispute between the parties, ensuring that the trial addresses the substantive matters necessary for a "right decision." Issues are framed precisely to avoid surprises during the trial and to guide parties on what evidence to present.¹

Rationale Behind the Principle: Ensuring Justice and Effective Adjudication

The underlying rationale for this principle is to prevent miscarriages of justice that might arise from procedural oversights, imperfect drafting, or strategic omissions in the parties' pleadings.¹ It ensures that the court's focus remains squarely on the merits of the case rather than being derailed by technicalities. This flexibility allows the court to adapt to the evolving realities of a case as evidence is presented or new facts emerge, ensuring that the final judgment effectively resolves the actual controversy between the parties.¹ Ultimately, the principle promotes the efficient and effective administration of justice by preventing unnecessary technical dismissals and fostering decisions based on the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties.¹

The transformation of this obiter dictum into a cardinal principle of procedural law is noteworthy. While the Bank of Ceylon statement was initially a judicial observation made in passing ⁸, subsequent cases, such as

Sopinona v. Pitipanaarachchi, explicitly cite it as a fundamental rule and emphasize its importance.⁷ This demonstrates a clear evolution in its legal standing. What began as a judicial observation has been consistently adopted and reinforced by subsequent courts, elevating its status to a fundamental rule governing civil procedure in Sri Lanka. This dynamic illustrates the organic development of common law. Even non-binding pronouncements can gain significant precedential force if they are perceived as serving a crucial purpose, such as ensuring substantive justice, and are consistently applied and reaffirmed by higher courts. This highlights the judiciary's role in shaping and refining procedural law to meet the practical demands of justice.

III. Statutory Framework in Sri Lanka: The Civil Procedure Code

The principle that issues are not restricted by pleadings is firmly embedded within the statutory framework of the Sri Lankan Civil Procedure Code (CPC), particularly through Sections 146 and 93.

Section 146: The Court's Duty to Frame Issues

Section 146 of the CPC is the primary statutory provision governing the framing of issues in Sri Lanka.² It mandates that on the day fixed for the hearing, if the parties do not agree on the questions of fact or law in dispute, the court "will ascertain the material propositions of fact or law at variance... then record the issues on which the case's decision depends".² This section explicitly empowers the court to draw upon various sources to identify these material propositions, including the plaint, answers to interrogatories, documents produced by parties, and even direct examination of the parties themselves.¹ The provision also clarifies that the court is not obligated to frame issues if the defendant offers no defense, underscoring that issues arise only from a genuine dispute.¹ The

Bank of Ceylon dictum directly reinforces the spirit and intent of Section 146, emphasizing the court's proactive role in this process.⁸

Section 93: The Power to Amend Pleadings – Historical Evolution and Current Position

Section 93 of the CPC is crucial as it grants the court "full power of amending in its discretion, all pleadings".⁸ This provision complements Section 146 by providing the procedural mechanism to formally align the pleadings with the issues as they are framed or refined by the court. The evolution of Section 93 reflects a continuous legislative effort to balance flexibility with procedural certainty.

The historical development of Section 93 reveals significant shifts in its application:

• Originally (pre-1988 interpretation): Section 93 granted broad discretion for amendments at any hearing before final judgment. However, judicial interpretation, notably in Lebbe v. Sandanam (1963) 64 NLR 461, paradoxically limited this power to after the commencement of the trial, not before.¹¹

• Amendment Act No. 79 of 1988: This act introduced a requirement for "exceptional circumstances" and recorded reasons for amendments, reflecting a move towards greater judicial accountability.¹¹

• Amendment Act No. 9 of 1991: This significantly altered the landscape by distinguishing between amendments made before the day first fixed for trial (where the court had full discretion without special conditions) and those made on or after that day (requiring proof of "grave and irremediable injustice" and absence of "laches"). This aimed to encourage early finalization of pleadings.¹¹

• Amendment Acts No. 8 of 2017 & No. 29 of 2023: These acts further refined the timing, substituting "first fixed for trial" with "first fixed for Pre-Trial" and then "first fixed for Pre-Trial conference of the action," respectively. This aligns the amendment process with modern case management practices.¹¹

The current position under Section 93 (as per Act No. 29 of 2023) is as follows:

• Before Pre-Trial Conference: The court retains full discretionary power to amend pleadings upon application. At this stage, courts generally adopt a liberal approach, aiming to facilitate the presentation of the real dispute and prevent multiplicity of actions.¹¹

• On or After Pre-Trial Conference: Amendments are permitted only if the court is satisfied, for recorded reasons, that "grave and irremediable injustice" would result if the amendment were not allowed, and that the applying party has not been "guilty of laches" (unreasonable delay causing prejudice). Both conditions must be strictly met.¹¹

• Terms: Any allowed amendment, regardless of stage, is subject to such terms as to costs and postponement as the court deems fit.¹¹

The numerous amendments to Section 93 demonstrate a legislative response to practical challenges and judicial interpretations. The initial broad discretion, followed by the "exceptional circumstances" requirement, and then the critical distinction between pre-trial and post-pre-trial amendments, indicates a deliberate effort to encourage early clarification of issues while imposing stricter controls on later amendments to prevent abuse and undue delay. This evolution reflects a mature legal system's continuous adaptation to achieve optimal procedural efficiency without sacrificing the fundamental right to justice. It shows a dynamic interplay between judicial practice and legislative reform, where lessons learned from the courtroom inform statutory changes to create a more effective and predictable civil justice system.

The Interrelationship: How CPC Sections 93 and 146 Govern the Principle

Section 146 empowers the court to identify and frame issues based on the true points of variance, even if these are not perfectly articulated in the initial pleadings.² This is the substantive power to define the scope of the trial. Section 93, on the other hand, provides the procedural flexibility to ensure that the formal pleadings can be updated to reflect the issues as framed by the court. This mechanism allows the pleadings to catch up with the evolving understanding of the case, preventing a disconnect between the formal record and the actual trial.⁸ Thus, the

Bank of Ceylon principle, read in conjunction with Sections 93 and 146, highlights a system where the court has both the authority to determine the real issues for decision and the means to ensure the formal record reflects this determination, thereby promoting a trial on the true merits.

Section 146 explicitly places a duty on the court to ascertain and record issues.² This, coupled with the

Bank of Ceylon principle that issues are not restricted by pleadings ⁸, suggests a judicial philosophy where the judge is not merely a passive umpire but an active participant in defining the scope of the trial. The court is empowered to identify the "material propositions" necessary for a "right decision," even if parties fail to articulate them perfectly. This proactive stance distinguishes the Sri Lankan system from purely adversarial models, where the burden of defining the dispute rests almost entirely on the parties. It implies a stronger judicial commitment to ensuring that cases are decided on their true merits, even if it requires the court to intervene to clarify or expand the issues beyond what the parties initially presented.

Table 1: Evolution of Section 93 of the Sri Lankan Civil Procedure Code

Year/Act	Key Provision/Discretion	Timing/Conditions	Purpose/Impact
Original Enactment (pre-1988 interpretation)	Broad discretion to amend pleadings.	"At any hearing... before final judgment." Judicially interpreted as after trial commencement, not before.	Flexibility, but with a paradoxical limitation on pre-trial amendments.
Amendment Act No. 79 of 1988	Court may amend in "exceptional circumstances" for "reasons to be recorded."	"At any hearing... or at any time... before final judgment."	Introduced greater judicial accountability and stricter conditions for amendments.
Amendment Act No. 9 of 1991	Before first fixed for trial: Full discretion. On or after first fixed for trial: Only if "grave and irremediable injustice" and no "laches."	Distinguished between pre-trial and post-trial amendments.	Encouraged early finalization of pleadings; imposed stringent conditions for late amendments to prevent delay and abuse.
Amendment Act No. 8 of 2017	Substituted "first fixed for trial" with "first fixed for Pre-Trial."	Aligned amendment timing with the introduction of pre-trial procedures.	Modernized the procedural timeline for pleading amendments.
Amendment Act No. 29 of 2023 (Current)	Substituted "first fixed for Pre-Trial" with "first fixed for Pre-Trial conference of the action."	Further refined timing to align with specific pre-trial conference stage.	Emphasizes early resolution and finalization of pleadings before the formal pre-trial conference.

This table provides a structured and concise visual representation of the complex changes to Section 93 over time.¹¹ It allows for a clear understanding of the historical progression and the current state of the law, highlighting policy shifts and legislative intentions behind each amendment. Understanding the precise scope and limitations of Section 93 at different historical points is crucial for appreciating how judges exercise their discretion in allowing amendments to pleadings, which directly impacts the flexibility available to align pleadings with issues framed by the court.

IV. The Evolution of Pleadings and Issue Framing in Common Law Jurisprudence

The principle that issues are not strictly restricted by pleadings is best understood within the broader historical evolution of civil procedure in common law jurisdictions. This trajectory reflects a continuous effort to refine the balance between procedural orderliness and substantive justice.

From Strict Common Law Pleading to Modern Civil Procedure

Historically, common law pleadings began as oral exchanges between litigants and the court, primarily aimed at narrowing disputes. These oral statements were eventually formalized into written declarations.⁵ The system was characterized by rigid "forms of action," which required plaintiffs to select a specific writ before filing initial pleadings. This selection narrowly defined the legal theory and inherently restricted the scope of the case from its very inception.⁵ The common law further narrowed issues through a process of "iterated pleading," where parties would exchange a series of pleadings (declarations, pleas, replications, rejoinders) and demurrers (challenging the legal sufficiency of a pleading) until a single, clear issue of law or fact was framed. This method was primarily for administrative convenience and to simplify matters for lay juries.⁵

However, this highly formalistic approach frequently led to significant injustices. Cases were often dismissed on technicalities or minor procedural errors rather than on their substantive merits. Plaintiffs were severely constrained by their initial declarations, and even slight deviations or missteps in pleading could prove fatal to a claim, regardless of its underlying validity.⁵

The 19th century saw the emergence of "Code Pleading" as a reform movement, aiming to abolish the rigid distinction between actions at law and suits in equity, and to eliminate the restrictive forms of action. The initial vision was for plaintiffs to simply state the facts in plain language, allowing courts to apply any applicable substantive law without regard to specific forms. Yet, this simple vision became "encrusted with gloss" in many jurisdictions. Doctrines like the "theory of the pleadings" often reintroduced restrictions, requiring plaintiffs to articulate a specific legal theory, leading to dismissals if the allegations didn't precisely support that theory. Furthermore, "fact pleading" generated "unresolvable disputes" about what constituted "ultimate facts" versus "mere evidence" or "conclusions," again leading to dismissals based on formality rather than merit.⁵

The modern system, exemplified by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in 1938 in the United States, intentionally abandoned the primary issue-narrowing function of pleadings. Instead, pleadings adopted a "notice-giving" function, requiring only a "short and plain statement" of the claim. The focus shifted from strict issue definition within the pleadings themselves to providing broader notice to the opposing party and the court.⁵

The Shift from Issue-Narrowing to Notice-Giving

In modern civil procedure, the crucial function of narrowing issues has largely been transferred from the initial pleadings to other, later procedural devices. These include liberalized and expanded discovery practices, which serve as the main avenue for factual development and, consequently, for identifying and refining the issues in dispute. Similarly, summary adjudication motions are used to dispose of cases or specific issues where no genuine issue of material fact exists, effectively narrowing the issues that proceed to trial. Pre-trial conferences also represent important opportunities for disputants and the court to identify, frame, and dispose of issues.⁵

Modern procedure generally tolerates considerable variance between the issues formulated in pleadings and those ultimately presented and tried at trial. Parties may even change legal theories during the course of litigation, and courts can grant relief not explicitly demanded in the initial pleadings.⁵ The

Bank of Ceylon principle, with its emphasis that issue framing is "not restricted by the pleadings," aligns closely with this modern procedural philosophy. It prioritizes the court's ability to achieve the "right decision" based on the actual dispute, rather than being rigidly bound by the initial formal statements.⁸

The Enduring Purpose of Pleadings in Defining the Dispute

Despite the significant shift in their primary function, pleadings retain an enduring purpose. They still provide essential notice to the court and opposing parties about the general nature of the claims and defenses asserted.⁵ Pleadings serve as a foundational framework, even if not an exhaustive or immutable one, for the subsequent process of issue framing, discovery, and evidence presentation. They set the initial boundaries of the controversy.¹ Crucially, they play a vital role in preventing "surprise" by giving parties an initial, albeit sometimes broad, understanding of the case they are expected to meet and defend against.¹

Sri Lanka's civil procedure can be understood as a pragmatic hybrid, integrating elements of both traditional and modern common law approaches. The Bank of Ceylon principle ⁸ and CPC Section 146 ² reflect the modern common law emphasis on judicial flexibility in issue framing, moving beyond strict pleading confines.⁵ However, the detailed requirements for plaint and answer content in the Sri Lankan CPC (e.g., Section 40 ²) and the structured evolution of Section 93 ¹¹ suggest a more prescriptive approach to pleadings than the "short and plain statement" of pure notice pleading systems.⁵ This indicates that Sri Lankan civil procedure is not a wholesale adoption of modern pleading, but rather a carefully constructed hybrid that seeks to leverage the benefits of both systems: the clarity and structure provided by more detailed initial pleadings, combined with the judicial flexibility to adapt to the true nature of the dispute as it unfolds. This hybridity suggests a conscious legal development strategy aimed at achieving a balance between procedural orderliness (through relatively detailed pleadings) and substantive justice (through flexible issue framing). It implies a recognition that while initial clarity is beneficial, rigid adherence to early procedural documents can impede the court's ability to resolve the real controversy.

Table 2: Comparison of Common Law and Modern Pleading Systems

System	Primary Function of Pleadings	Role in Issue Narrowing	Flexibility in Amending Pleadings	Risk of Technical Dismissals	Key Procedural Devices for Issue Resolution
Traditional Common Law (e.g., English Common Law)	Define and narrow issues precisely.	Primary mechanism; iterated pleading to a single issue.	Very limited; often fatal if not perfectly aligned with forms of action.	High; cases dismissed on procedural errors over merits.	Iterated pleadings, demurrers.
Code Pleading (e.g., 19th Century US Codes)	State facts in simple language; define legal theory.	Intended to be less restrictive, but "theory of pleadings" often reintroduced rigidity.	Moderate, but often constrained by "theory of pleadings" and "fact pleading" disputes.	Moderate; still susceptible to formalistic dismissals.	Pleadings, some early discovery.
Modern Pleading (e.g., US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)	Provide "notice" of claim/defense.	Minimal; largely transferred to other devices.	Highly liberal; "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires."	Low; focus on merits, not technicalities.	Discovery, summary judgment, pre-trial conferences.
Sri Lankan Civil Procedure	Define initial claims/defenses; provide notice.	Significant; court has duty to frame issues not restricted by pleadings (Section 146).	Moderate to high; liberal before pre-trial, stringent after (Section 93).	Moderate; balance between formalism and flexibility.	Pleadings, interrogatories, documents, examination of parties, pre-trial conferences.

This comparative table offers a highly effective visual tool to differentiate distinct pleading philosophies and their impact on issue framing across various common law jurisdictions.⁵ It helps to clearly articulate how Sri Lankan civil procedure, particularly with the

Bank of Ceylon principle, positions itself within this spectrum – not as strictly bound as traditional common law, yet perhaps more structured than pure modern notice pleading. By showcasing the injustices and inefficiencies of older, more rigid systems ⁵, the table implicitly reinforces the rationale behind the modern shift towards flexibility and the importance of principles like

Bank of Ceylon in achieving justice on the merits.

V. Judicial Discretion in Framing Issues: Scope and Application

The principle that issue framing is not restricted by pleadings is fundamentally rooted in the concept of judicial discretion. This discretion empowers judges to ensure that justice is served, even when the initial procedural documents may be imperfect.

Nature of Judicial Discretion in Civil Proceedings

Judicial discretion refers to a judge's inherent authority to make decisions based on an individualized evaluation of the facts and circumstances of a case, guided by established legal principles, rather than a rigid, mechanical application of the law.¹⁵ This power is granted to courts in recognition of the unique nature of each case, allowing for flexible and equitable outcomes. Decisions made under this discretion must be "sound" and "not arbitrary," implying a reasoned and justifiable basis that aligns with what is right and equitable under the circumstances.¹⁵ Importantly, an abuse of discretion is a recognized ground for appeal. Such an abuse occurs if a judicial decision is based on an error of law, a clearly erroneous factual finding, or if it "exceeded the bounds of reason" or resulted in a "manifest miscarriage of justice".¹⁵

The "sound discretion" standard serves as a critical mechanism for appellate oversight and maintaining judicial accountability. While trial judges have significant latitude in framing issues beyond pleadings, this power is not unfettered. Appellate courts can review whether the trial judge's exercise of this discretion was reasonable, based on correct legal principles, and supported by the facts presented.¹⁵ This establishes a vital check and balance within the judicial system. It ensures that the flexibility granted to trial courts to achieve substantive justice does not lead to arbitrary or unprincipled decision-making. The possibility of appellate review compels trial judges to exercise their discretion thoughtfully and to provide clear reasons for their decisions, thereby upholding the integrity and predictability of the judicial process.

How Courts Exercise Discretion to Achieve the "Right Decision"

The court's statutory duty to frame issues under Section 146 of the CPC is a direct manifestation of this judicial discretion, aimed at ensuring the "right decision of the case".² This exercise involves a careful ascertainment of "material propositions of fact or law at variance" by drawing upon all available sources: the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, documents produced by parties, and even direct examination of the parties themselves.¹ The objective is to accurately identify the core disputes, thereby preventing surprises during the trial and enabling both parties to focus their evidence and arguments on the truly contested points.¹

The Court's Inherent Power to Frame Issues Ex Mero Motu

Beyond the statutory mandate of Section 146, the Bank of Ceylon dictum implicitly acknowledges an inherent power of the court to frame issues sua sponte (on its own motion) when it appears necessary for the "right decision".⁸ This inherent power is a fundamental aspect of judicial authority, allowing courts to take "all things reasonably necessary" actions for the proper administration of justice, particularly in situations where explicit statutory guidance may be absent or insufficient to address the unique complexities of a case.¹⁶ This power serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that substantive justice is not obstructed by procedural deficiencies or omissions on the part of the litigants.¹⁶

The inherent power to frame issues is a foundational element of judicial truth-seeking and public interest protection. The concept of inherent power allows courts to act when statutory rules are silent.¹⁶ In cases with broader societal impact, such as partition actions where the decree is

in rem (binding against the whole world) ¹⁰, the court's duty to thoroughly investigate title and frame all relevant issues (even unpleaded ones) becomes paramount. The inherent power ensures that the court can fulfill this fundamental public duty, transcending the immediate adversarial claims of the parties. This suggests that the court's role extends beyond merely resolving the specific dispute presented by the parties. It encompasses a broader public interest in ensuring the correctness, finality, and universal binding nature of certain judgments. The inherent power to frame issues acts as a critical safety net, allowing the judiciary to pursue truth and prevent future litigation or uncertainty that could arise from an incomplete adjudication.

VI. Limitations and Restrictions on the Court's Power

While the principle from Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai grants significant flexibility to courts in framing issues, this power is not absolute. It is circumscribed by fundamental legal principles and procedural safeguards designed to ensure fairness and prevent abuse.

A. Procedural Fairness and the Doctrine of Surprise

The court's power to frame issues, even when not explicitly restricted by pleadings, must always be exercised in conformity with the fundamental principles of procedural fairness. A core component of a fair trial is that parties must have adequate and timely notice of the issues they are required to meet and a reasonable opportunity to present their case, including evidence and arguments, in response to those issues.¹⁴ The court's discretion in framing issues is significantly limited by the imperative to prevent "unfair prejudice" or "surprise" to any party. "Unfair prejudice" refers to an undue tendency to induce a decision on an improper or emotional basis.⁵ Indeed, the very purpose of framing issues is to avoid surprises at trial and ensure parties know precisely what points require evidence.¹

If new issues are framed or evidence is introduced that could genuinely surprise or prejudice a party, the court has a duty to grant a continuance or other appropriate procedural safeguards. This allows the affected party sufficient time to gather evidence, prepare arguments, and effectively respond to the newly introduced issues.¹⁹ These safeguards are essential to maintain the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.²⁷ The "doctrine of surprise" serves as the primary procedural safeguard against judicial overreach in issue framing. While the

Bank of Ceylon principle grants significant flexibility, the repeated emphasis on "avoiding surprises" ¹ and preventing "unfair prejudice" ⁵ reveals a fundamental boundary. The court cannot introduce issues so unexpectedly or at such a late stage that a party is genuinely deprived of the opportunity to prepare their case or present relevant evidence. This is directly linked to the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process.²¹ This demonstrates that judicial flexibility, while crucial for substantive justice, is not absolute. It must always be balanced against the parties' right to adequate notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. The procedural safeguards like continuances are not mere formalities but essential mechanisms to ensure that the pursuit of truth does not compromise the fundamental fairness of the process.

B. Materiality and Relevance

The court's power to frame issues beyond pleadings is not a license to introduce extraneous matters. Issues framed by the court "should not frame any issue which does not arise in the pleadings" or from the material propositions at variance between the parties. They "must be confined onto the material questions of fact or law".¹ This ensures that the trial remains focused on the actual controversy. Framing issues that are not material or relevant to the core dispute can lead to wasted judicial time and resources, prolong litigation, and distract from the true points requiring adjudication.¹ The court's discretion must be exercised to narrow, not broaden, the dispute to its essential elements.

The "materiality" constraint acts as a structural limit on judicial creativity and a reinforcement of the adversarial nature of civil litigation. The consistent statements that issues "must be confined onto the material questions of fact or law" and that the court "should not frame any issue which does not arise in the pleadings" ¹ highlight a crucial distinction. While pleadings do not

restrict issues in the sense of being an exhaustive list, they still serve as the factual and legal foundation from which material issues must logically emerge. The court cannot invent issues entirely detached from the facts or legal theories presented, even if imperfectly, by the parties. This limitation prevents courts from adopting a purely inquisitorial role or embarking on "fishing expeditions." It ensures that the judicial process, even with its flexibility, remains fundamentally adversarial, where the court's role is to resolve the dispute as presented by the parties, albeit with the power to ensure all material aspects of that dispute are properly identified and adjudicated. This preserves the parties' autonomy in defining the core of their legal battle, while allowing the court to ensure the battle is fought on the correct and complete ground.

C. Statutory and Jurisdictional Boundaries

While Section 146 provides flexibility in issue framing, it operates within the broader statutory framework of the CPC. For example, Section 93's stringent conditions for amending pleadings after the pre-trial conference (requiring "grave and irremediable injustice" and absence of "laches") indirectly limit the extent to which entirely new issues, necessitating significant unpleaded facts, can be introduced at late stages of the trial.¹¹ Furthermore, a court's power to frame issues is fundamentally limited by its subject-matter jurisdiction. The court cannot frame issues or adjudicate matters that fall outside its statutory or constitutional grant of authority. Such an action would render the judgment void

ab initio.²⁹

D. Appellate Review of Issue Framing

The proper framing and adjudication of issues are subject to appellate scrutiny. An omission by the trial court to frame a necessary issue is considered an irregularity. While not always fatal, it can vitiate proceedings if it affects the merits of the case or causes substantial prejudice to a party. Similarly, wrongly framed issues can lead to a decree being set aside on appeal if they are prejudicial.¹ The failure of a trial court to adequately frame and comprehensively answer all relevant issues can lead to severe consequences, including a "denial of justice" or a "miscarriage of justice," often necessitating an order for a retrial. This is particularly critical in cases requiring a thorough investigation of title, such as partition actions, where the decree is

in rem. The Supreme Court in Sopinona v. Pitipanaarachchi strongly emphasized the judge's duty to evaluate all evidence and provide reasoned decisions on all issues.⁷

VII. Application and Interpretation in Subsequent Sri Lankan Case Law

The principle from Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai has been consistently applied and further elaborated by Sri Lankan courts, solidifying its place as a cornerstone of civil procedure.

Sopinona v. Pitipanaarachchi (SC Appeal No. 49/2003): A Landmark Reaffirmation

The Supreme Court's decision in Sopinona v. Pitipanaarachchi stands as a powerful reaffirmation and elaboration of the Bank of Ceylon principle. The case involved a partition action where the District Judge had answered only one issue, believing it sufficient to determine title, and consequently refrained from answering the remaining thirteen issues raised by the respondents.⁷ The Supreme Court unequivocally held that the District Judge's failure to answer all relevant issues constituted a "denial of justice" and a "miscarriage of justice".⁷ It stressed that in partition actions, a "thorough investigation of title" is a fundamental duty devolving on the court, particularly because a partition decree is

in rem (binding against the whole world) and affects all interests in the property.⁷

The Court emphasized that "bare answers to issues without reasons are not in compliance with the requirements of Section 187 of the Civil Procedure Code".¹⁰ It mandated that a judge must "evaluate and consider the totality of the evidence, giving a short summary of the evidence of the parties and witnesses and stating the reasons for his preference to accept the evidence of one party as opposed to that of the other".¹⁰ This highlights that merely framing issues is insufficient; comprehensive adjudication of each issue with proper reasoning is required.

This judgment illustrates the expansion of judicial duty from merely "framing" to "comprehensively answering" all issues. While Bank of Ceylon focuses on the court's power and duty to frame issues not restricted by pleadings ⁸,

Sopinona significantly extends this by emphasizing the duty to answer all relevant issues, providing detailed reasons.¹⁰ The

Sopinona judgment explicitly states that merely framing issues is insufficient if they are not subsequently adjudicated with proper reasoning. This indicates a deepening of judicial responsibility beyond just identifying the points of dispute. This evolution reflects a commitment to judicial thoroughness and accountability. It ensures that the flexibility in issue framing does not lead to superficial or incomplete adjudication. By requiring reasoned answers to all issues, the courts enhance transparency, facilitate effective appellate review, and reinforce the overall integrity and perceived fairness of the judicial process.

Furthermore, Sopinona highlights the in rem nature of certain actions as a determinant of a heightened judicial duty in issue framing and adjudication. The case specifically underlines that in partition actions, where the decree is in rem, the court's duty to investigate title and answer all issues is particularly stringent.¹⁰ This implies that the scope and rigor of the

Bank of Ceylon principle's application are not uniform across all civil cases. In matters affecting universal rights or broader public interest, the court's proactive duty to ensure a complete and correct adjudication intensifies. This suggests a nuanced application of procedural flexibility. While the principle generally promotes adaptability, its application becomes more demanding when the nature of the action requires a higher degree of certainty and finality, impacting not just the immediate litigants but potentially the entire community or future generations. This demonstrates the judiciary's awareness of the broader societal implications of its decisions.

Other Key Judicial Pronouncements and Their Impact

Peiris v. Municipal Council, Galle (65 NLR 555) is frequently cited alongside Bank of Ceylon in subsequent judgments, including Sopinona, to underscore the court's inherent and imperative duty to frame and answer all relevant issues that arise for a just decision.⁷ The consistent citation of the

Bank of Ceylon principle across various Sri Lankan judgments ³ solidifies its strong precedential value and widespread acceptance as a guiding principle in civil procedure.

Consistency and Divergence in Application

The application of the principle consistently emphasizes the court's proactive role in defining the true scope of the dispute. However, its application is always tempered by the need to avoid prejudice and ensure procedural fairness. This is evident in the strong condemnation of failing to answer all material issues and the severe consequences (e.g., retrial) that flow from such failures.¹⁰

VIII. Conclusion and Recommendations

The principle articulated in Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai remains a cornerstone of Sri Lankan civil procedure, empowering courts to transcend the strictures of initial pleadings to identify and adjudicate the true issues in dispute. This judicial flexibility, explicitly supported by Section 146 of the CPC, is vital for achieving substantive justice.³ However, this power is not unfettered. It is carefully balanced by critical procedural safeguards, including the paramount imperative of procedural fairness, the prevention of surprise and undue prejudice to parties, and the strict requirement that framed issues must be material to the actual controversy and within the court's established jurisdictional boundaries. Subsequent authoritative case law, most notably

Sopinona v. Pitipanaarachchi, has significantly reinforced not only the duty to frame issues but also the equally critical obligation to comprehensively answer all relevant issues with reasoned explanations, especially in actions with in rem effect where a thorough investigation of title is paramount.¹⁰

The principle serves as a driver for judicial economy and preventing multiplicity of actions. By allowing courts to frame issues beyond the strict confines of pleadings and by emphasizing the duty to answer all material issues ⁸, the principle implicitly aims to ensure that the

entire dispute between the parties is resolved in a single proceeding. This prevents the need for parties to initiate fresh litigation on related issues that could have been determined in the original suit, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and reducing the overall burden on the court system and litigants. This highlights a key policy objective embedded within the procedural rule: to achieve comprehensive and definitive justice in a single forum. It suggests that procedural flexibility, when applied judiciously, serves not only the individual fairness of a case but also the broader systemic goal of efficient resource allocation and finality in litigation.

Practical Implications for Litigants, Counsel, and the Judiciary

• For Litigants: The principle encourages a focus on the substantive merits of their case, assuring them that procedural imperfections in initial pleadings will not necessarily derail a just outcome. However, it also demands vigilance to ensure all material issues are addressed and that no new, prejudicial issues are introduced without proper notice and opportunity to respond.

• For Counsel: This principle necessitates thorough preparation that extends beyond the literal four corners of the pleadings, requiring counsel to anticipate and be prepared to address potential issues that may emerge during the trial. It underscores the professional duty to assist the court in framing proper issues and to object appropriately if unpleaded issues cause genuine surprise or prejudice.¹ The ethical imperative for legal counsel to actively assist the court in achieving substantive justice is evident here. While the court bears the primary duty to frame issues ¹, the effective functioning of the

  Bank of Ceylon principle relies heavily on the active participation of legal counsel. The need to avoid surprise and ensure materiality implies that counsel cannot merely rely on their initial pleadings. They have a professional and ethical obligation to bring all material facts and legal arguments to the court's attention, even if it means suggesting issues not explicitly pleaded, or seeking amendments. This collaborative aspect is crucial for the principle to operate effectively without causing procedural unfairness. This points to a professional responsibility that transcends mere adversarial advocacy. It suggests that the civil justice system, particularly in common law jurisdictions like Sri Lanka, relies on the active, honest, and competent participation of legal professionals to ensure that the court is fully apprised of the true nature of the dispute. This collaborative effort is essential for facilitating the "right decision" and upholding the integrity and public trust in the judicial process.

• For the Judiciary: The principle reinforces the active, rather than passive, role of the judge in civil trials. It demands a proactive approach in identifying and ensuring the adjudication of all material issues necessary for a "right decision." This requires careful and reasoned exercise of judicial discretion, ensuring procedural fairness, and providing comprehensive, reasoned judgments on all framed issues.¹

Recommendations for Best Practices in Issue Framing and Pleading Management

To further enhance the effectiveness and fairness of civil litigation in light of this principle, the following recommendations are put forth:

• Early Case Management and Pre-Trial Conferences: Courts should proactively and robustly utilize pre-trial conferences to engage with parties, identify, clarify, and finalize all potential issues. This leverages the flexibility provided by Section 93(1) CPC for amendments at an early stage, minimizing late-stage disruptions.¹¹

• Continuous Review and Amendment of Issues: Judges should maintain a dynamic approach to issue framing throughout the trial. As evidence unfolds, they should continuously review and, if necessary, amend or add issues under Section 149 CPC, always ensuring proper notice and adequate opportunity for parties to respond.²

• Comprehensive and Reasoned Judgments: Judicial pronouncements must provide clear, detailed, and reasoned answers to all framed issues. This is particularly crucial in complex cases or those with in rem implications, demonstrating a thorough evaluation of all evidence and arguments.¹⁰

• Enhanced Role of Counsel: Legal practitioners should not only meticulously draft their pleadings but also remain adaptable and proactive throughout the litigation. This includes actively proposing issues to the court and diligently ensuring that any new issues framed by the court are met with adequate preparation, or by timely and appropriate requests for procedural safeguards such as continuances.¹

• Ongoing Judicial Training: Continuous professional development and training for judges are essential to enhance their skills in exercising nuanced judicial discretion in issue framing, effectively balancing procedural flexibility with the imperative of fairness and the avoidance of surprise.

By adhering to these practices, the civil justice system can continue to uphold the spirit of Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai, ensuring that procedural rules serve as facilitators of justice rather than impediments to it.