Understanding the Core Problem:

Mr. A's primary concern is that his lawyer filed a ground in court that was not authorized by him and appears to favor Mr. B, potentially prejudicing his case. He wants to know if he can introduce new, accurate grounds at this late stage.

Legal Principles at Play (General Concepts - May Vary by Jurisdiction):

1. Pleadings and Grounds: In a legal case, the "grounds" (also called pleas, contentions, or arguments) are the factual and legal bases upon which a party relies to support their claim or defense. These are typically established early in the litigation process through written pleadings (e.g., plaint, written statement, reply).

2. Amendment of Pleadings: Courts generally allow amendments to pleadings, even at later stages, if it's necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and if it doesn't cause undue prejudice to the other side. However, the closer the case gets to judgment, the more difficult it becomes to amend.

3. Lawyer's Authority and Professional Conduct: A lawyer is an agent of their client and is expected to act in the client's best interests within the bounds of the law. Filing an unauthorized and unfavorable ground could raise questions about professional misconduct or negligence.

4. Waiver/Estoppel: If a party allows a particular ground to be pursued without objection for a significant period, they might be deemed to have waived their right to object later, or be estopped from raising a contradictory ground.

Advice for Mr. A:

Immediate Actions:

1. Confront the Lawyer Immediately: Mr. A must schedule an urgent meeting with his current lawyer. He needs to calmly but firmly ask for an explanation regarding the unauthorized ground that was filed. He should express his concerns clearly and state that this was not his instruction and does not represent his defense.

2. Gather Documentation: Mr. A should compile all relevant documents, including any communication with his lawyer regarding the grounds for defense, the original instructions he gave, and any court filings he has copies of.

3. Review the Case File: If possible, Mr. A should ask his lawyer for access to the complete case file to understand exactly what has been filed on his behalf.

Regarding Filing Additional Grounds:

• It's Difficult, But Potentially Possible: Introducing new grounds at the "final stage" of a case is challenging. Courts are generally reluctant to allow last-minute changes that could prolong the trial or unfairly surprise the opposing party.

• Procedure for Amendment: To introduce new grounds, Mr. A's lawyer would likely need to file an application for amendment of the written statement (or whatever the relevant pleading is in that court) before the court.

• Court's Discretion: The court has wide discretion in allowing or denying such an amendment. Factors the court will consider include:

  • Reason for Delay: Why weren't these grounds raised earlier?

  • Prejudice to the Other Party: Will allowing the amendment unfairly disadvantage Mr. B?

  • Merits of the New Ground: Is the new ground genuinely relevant and does it help determine the real dispute?

  • Bona Fide Error: Was the previous filing a genuine mistake or error?

  • Stage of the Proceedings: The closer to judgment, the harder it is. If arguments have concluded or judgment is reserved, it becomes extremely difficult.

What Mr. A's Lawyer Should Do (or what Mr. A should demand):

1. Seek Leave to Amend: If the unauthorized ground is genuinely detrimental and the new ground is crucial, the lawyer should file an application with the court seeking permission to amend the pleadings to remove the unfavorable ground and/or add the correct ground as instructed by Mr. A.

2. Explain the Situation to the Court: In the application for amendment, the lawyer would need to explain the circumstances, possibly acknowledging an error or misunderstanding regarding the client's instructions.

3. Consider Consequences: The lawyer might face costs or other minor penalties for the delay or for filing an incorrect pleading, but the priority is to correct the record for Mr. A.

Considerations if the Lawyer is Uncooperative or Negligent:

• Change of Counsel: If Mr. A's lawyer is uncooperative, unresponsive, or refuses to take the necessary steps, Mr. A should seriously consider dismissing the current lawyer and hiring a new one. This would involve another application to the court to change counsel, which could cause further delay but might be necessary to protect his interests.

• Professional Complaint: If the lawyer's actions amount to professional misconduct or gross negligence, Mr. A might consider filing a complaint with the relevant Bar Council or disciplinary authority. This is a separate process from the court case itself.

Crucial Point:

The feasibility of filing additional grounds depends heavily on the exact "final stage" the case is in.

• If evidence is still being led or arguments haven't concluded: There might be a stronger chance, though still an uphill battle.

• If arguments have concluded and judgment is reserved: It becomes exceedingly difficult, as the court has already heard the case based on the existing pleadings. Any new ground at this point would essentially require reopening the case.

Legal Opinion: Cheque Bounce  Filing Additional Ground in Final Stage of Trial

Facts Recap:
Mr. A had given a blank cheque to Mr. B for insurance purposes. Later, a dispute arose, and Mr. B presented the cheque for a different amount. The cheque was dishonoured, and Mr. B filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Mr. A hired a lawyer and contested the case, but has now discovered that his lawyer submitted grounds not authorized by Mr. A, possibly favouring Mr. B. Mr. A now wants to file the actual ground of defence.

 Legal Position:

1. Cheque Bounce Cases (NI Act, Section 138) are quasi criminal in nature and allow for adequate opportunity for defence. However, since the case is at the final stage, the scope to add new grounds depends on the exact procedural posture.

 Available Legal Options:

1. Move an Application under Section 311 CrPC (if evidence is still open):

• If the evidence stage is not fully concluded, Mr. A may:

  • Request the court to allow additional evidence or clarification, stating the reason for omission.

  • File an application under Section 311 CrPC to recall himself or any other witness for limited purpose of clarification or submission of new facts.

2. File an Application to Submit Written Submissions / Clarify Pleadings:

• If the case is in the final arguments stage, Mr. A can request the court to accept additional written submissions, pointing out:

  • That certain facts were not properly represented by his previous counsel.

  • That these clarifications are necessary for fair adjudication.

3. Application for Change of Counsel and Rectification:

• Mr. A may also:

  • Engage a new lawyer.

  • File a substitution of vakalatnama and submit that incorrect or unauthorized pleadings were made earlier.

  • Request the court to consider rectification in interest of justice.

4. Filing Revision or Appeal (if judgment is already passed):

• If the judgment gets passed without considering Mr. A’s true defence, then he can raise this issue in appeal or criminal revision, citing ineffective representation or misrepresentation by counsel.

Judicial Support:

Courts have held that even in cheque bounce cases, substance over form should prevail, and technicalities should not defeat justice. If the defence is genuine and was wrongly misrepresented, courts are likely to allow amendment or supplementary submissions, especially if done before final judgment.

 Recommendation:

 Mr. A should immediately engage a new , review the court file, and if possible:

• File an application for submitting additional defence ground, citing oversight or misrepresentation.

• Act without delay, as court’s discretion depends on timeliness and bona fides.

 drafting a Section 311 application or written submissions.

1. Your question is, the payee of cheque added a ground for consideration of cheque which  is not agreed.
2. The payee can claim that the  payer has issued the  cheque for the  consideration agreed or for any other legal consideration.
3. If your question is, can payee add fresh ground as consideration of issuing cheque, the answer is NO. 

It is necessary to peruse case papers to advice what is ground not mentioned by A 

You can always make legal submissions in appeal 

- As per law , a criminal complaint cannot be amended on any ground , except a clerical error can be corrected 

- Further, if Mr A is an accused in the said Negotiable Instruments Case , then except filing an application under section 145 there is no provision to file any reply with ground in the case. 

- Further, the accused has his right to depose and correct the mistakes in his cross examinations

- However, if the case goes against A , then he can file Appeal before the higher Court. 

Dear Sir,

Mr. A can file an affidavit explaining that the cheque was given blank for insurance purposes and not for any debt, and he was unaware of the lawyer's incorrect submissions. if court denies to receive additional ground then A can approach the Higher Court.

Mr. A issued a blank cheque to Mr. B for the purpose of enrolling in an insurance policy. Mr. B allegedly misused this cheque, and after Mr. A refused to pay an unagreed amount, Mr. B presented the cheque, which was dishonoured. Mr. B then initiated criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging cheque bounce due to insufficient funds or non-payment.

Mr. A has already appointed legal representation and the matter has progressed to the final stage of trial. However, Mr. A has now discovered that his lawyer has submitted a ground in defence which does not reflect the actual facts as Mr. A had instructed, and that the argument seems to favour the complainant (Mr. B). Mr. A now wishes to raise additional grounds which more accurately represent his version of events.

At this stage, Mr. A can still take corrective action. Courts have recognized that pleadings and grounds can be amended or supplemented, even at a late stage, in the interest of justice—provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party, and especially when it concerns a fundamental defence. Mr. A should file an application before the trial court under Section 311 CrPC (for recall of witness, if needed), or move to file additional written submissions or seek permission to amend the reply or add supplementary grounds. The court holds discretionary power to allow such additions if it is satisfied that they are necessary for a just adjudication.

If the trial court refuses to permit the filing of additional or true factual grounds, Mr. A has the right to challenge such an order before the appellate or revisional court. He may do so under:

• Section 397 CrPC – Revision of interlocutory order

• Section 482 CrPC – Inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice

Further, if the trial concludes unfavourably due to the incorrect ground filed earlier, Mr. A can raise all proper and factual grounds in appeal, and the appellate court can re-examine both law and facts, including any procedural error or misrepresentation in lower court pleadings.

To safeguard his interest immediately, Mr. A must:

1. Inform the trial court in writing about the discrepancy in pleadings made by his lawyer.

2. File an application seeking permission to submit correct/additional grounds before the judgment is pronounced.

3. Engage another lawyer, if necessary, to represent his true case effectively.

If you need help drafting such an application or representation before the court, or if this issue escalates to appeal, I remain available for professional assistance.

Mr. A issued a blank cheque to Mr. B for the purpose of enrolling in an insurance policy. Mr. B allegedly misused this cheque, and after Mr. A refused to pay an unagreed amount, Mr. B presented the cheque, which was dishonoured. Mr. B then initiated criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging cheque bounce due to insufficient funds or non-payment.

Mr. A has already appointed legal representation and the matter has progressed to the final stage of trial. However, Mr. A has now discovered that his lawyer has submitted a ground in defence which does not reflect the actual facts as Mr. A had instructed, and that the argument seems to favour the complainant (Mr. B). Mr. A now wishes to raise additional grounds which more accurately represent his version of events.

At this stage, Mr. A can still take corrective action. Courts have recognized that pleadings and grounds can be amended or supplemented, even at a late stage, in the interest of justice—provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party, and especially when it concerns a fundamental defence. Mr. A should file an application before the trial court under Section 311 CrPC (for recall of witness, if needed), or move to file additional written submissions or seek permission to amend the reply or add supplementary grounds. The court holds discretionary power to allow such additions if it is satisfied that they are necessary for a just adjudication.

If the trial court refuses to permit the filing of additional or true factual grounds, Mr. A has the right to challenge such an order before the appellate or revisional court. He may do so under:

Section 397 CrPC – Revision of interlocutory order

Section 482 CrPC – Inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice

Further, if the trial concludes unfavourably due to the incorrect ground filed earlier, Mr. A can raise all proper and factual grounds in appeal, and the appellate court can re-examine both law and facts, including any procedural error or misrepresentation in lower court pleadings.

To safeguard his interest immediately, Mr. A must:

Inform the trial court in writing about the discrepancy in pleadings made by his lawyer.

File an application seeking permission to submit correct/additional grounds before the judgment is pronounced.

Engage another lawyer, if necessary, to represent his true case effectively.

If you need help drafting such an application or representation before the court, or if this issue escalates to appeal, I remain available for professional assistance.

Challenge to the order in higher court can be done on the basis of what is already on record which the court misinterpreted or did not consider. In case something new comes up during the course of appeal, only then, in exceptional circumstances will the court consider new evidence. 

Q. Suppose if the court denies to accept the additional grounds can Mr. A challenge the order in higher court by adding additional grounds?

Yes, Mr. A can generally challenge the order denying additional grounds in a higher court.

1. Discretion of the Lower Court: Courts typically have discretion to allow or disallow additional grounds. This discretion is usually exercised based on factors like:

• Reason for omission: Why were these grounds not raised earlier? Was there a genuine reason (e.g., new facts discovered, a change in law, or a mistake not willful or unreasonable)?

• Relevance and materiality: Are the additional grounds relevant to the case and crucial for a just decision?

• Prejudice to the other party: Will allowing the new grounds unfairly prejudice the opposing party, especially if it requires them to prepare for entirely new arguments or evidence at a late stage?

• Pure question of law: If the additional ground is a pure question of law not dependent on factual determination, courts are generally more inclined to allow it even at a later stage.

2. Challenging the Denial in a Higher Court:

If the lower court denies the application to add additional grounds, Mr. A can challenge this order in a higher court (e.g., High Court or Supreme Court, depending on the hierarchy of courts and the nature of the case). The higher court will examine:

• Whether the lower court exercised its discretion judiciously: The higher court will assess if the lower court's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or based on an incorrect understanding of the law.

• Merits of the additional grounds: The higher court may also consider the substance of the additional grounds to determine if their denial by the lower court has led to a miscarriage of justice.

• Substantial question of law: In appeals to higher courts, especially in second appeals (under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in India), the appeal often needs to involve a "substantial question of law." If the denial of additional grounds itself raises a substantial question of law (e.g., whether the lower court wrongly interpreted procedural law or denied a crucial legal argument), then the higher court can intervene.

Legal Provisions and Precedents (Indian Context):

• Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908: While specific rules might vary, generally, appellate courts have powers to allow additional grounds or evidence under certain circumstances (e.g., Order 41, Rule 27 for additional evidence, and inherent powers for additional grounds).

• Supreme Court and High Court rulings: Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently held that while parties are generally expected to raise all grounds at the earliest opportunity, courts have the power to allow additional grounds, especially if they are pure questions of law or necessary for a just decision and the omission was not willful or unreasonable. The principle is to do substantial justice rather than getting bogged down in procedural technicalities.

Important Considerations for Mr. A:

• Grounds for appeal: Mr. A's challenge to the higher court should clearly articulate why the lower court's denial was incorrect, focusing on the points mentioned above (e.g., the importance of the additional grounds, reasons for their late submission, and how their denial affects the overall justice of the case).

• Legal advice: It is crucial for Mr. A to consult with a legal professional. An experienced lawyer can assess the specific facts of the case, advise on the likelihood of success in challenging the order, and prepare the necessary legal documents and arguments for the higher court.

In criminal law there is no provision of amendment of complaint. Any appeal to higher Court is likely to be dismissed. 

Yes he can file additional ground but it we’ll have adverse inference against them 

Cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with cheque bounce, are considered quasi-civil in nature, further supporting the possibility of amendments

Amendments may be allowed to correct errors, clarify existing claims, avoid multiplicity of litigation, or serve the interests of justice, provided they don't fundamentally change the nature of the case or cause prejudice to the other party. 

However in this case if A is accused then where is the question of he filing any ground or pleadings?

The complaint is filed by B and A's duty is only to challenge the case in the trial proceedings.

If A's lawyer had omitted to ask certain important questions to the B during cross examination then A's lawyer can file a petition to recall the witness for additional cross examination.

If A is aggrieved by the judgment given against his interest, he can very well prefer an appeal before the district and sessions court but in the appeal he cannot introduce any new grounds for appeal other than what was pleaded in the trial court

Yes, Mr. A can challenge the order in the higher court by raising the additional grounds that were wrongly omitted or not accepted by the trial court.

Legal Explanation:

1. Right to Appeal or Revision
   If the trial court passes a final judgment without considering the correct grounds or refuses to allow Mr. A to add material grounds, he can file an appeal (under Section 374 CrPC in cheque bounce matters) or a revision petition before the Sessions Court or High Court.

2. Fresh Grounds Can Be Raised
   The appellate or revisional court generally permits an accused to raise additional or new legal grounds, especially when:

   • The new grounds go to the root of the case, or

   • The existing counsel made procedural or strategic errors, or

   • The omission of those grounds has prejudiced the accused’s defence.

3. Judicial Precedents
   Courts have consistently held that technicalities should not override justice, especially in criminal trials. If the trial court fails to consider relevant grounds or refuses permission to amend, the higher court has the power to consider all just and legal defences.

 What Mr. A Should Do:

• Consult a new lawyer (if needed) to file a revision or appeal.

• Clearly mention the grounds wrongly omitted and the prejudice caused.

• Annex supporting evidence to justify the new grounds.

If the trial court denies permission to raise additional grounds, Mr. A can definitely approach the higher court, and the new legal grounds can be raised at the appellate or revisional stage to protect his rights.

Yes, Mr. A can request the court to allow additional grounds through an application before final arguments. If the court denies, he can challenge the order in appeal/revision before a higher court with proper justification.

Yes, Mr. A can request the trial court to allow filing additional grounds or seek permission to amend his defense before the judgment is passed, especially if it clarifies the true facts of the case. Courts often allow this if it helps in deciding the matter fairly.

If the trial court refuses, Mr. A can definitely challenge that decision in a higher court (such as Sessions Court or High Court), especially if the additional ground is crucial to the case and affcts the merits of the defense.

It is important Mr. A acts quickly, before the final judgment is delivered.

Dear Client,

• Suppose if the court denies to accept the additional grounds can Mr. A challenge the order in higher court by adding additional grounds?

Yes, this is completely possible. According to Order XLI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (1908), additional grounds, which were not raised in the trial court, can be included when appealing, provided it doesn’t require additional evidence and is not a new fact. Refer to judicial interpretations of the same, such as Narayan vs. Babasaheb (2003), for more clarity.

I hope this answer helps. In case of future queries, please feel free to contact us. Thank you.