12. Sri Sujith Ghosh, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, would submit that, in the absence of a specific prayer seeking quashing of the letter dated 16.11.2018, presence of pleadings in this respect at para 9.219 of the appeal memo would not be a mitigating factor; in such a situation, this Tribunal ought not to grant the relief considering that the Respondent is contesting this aspect; in the context of granting relief of a substantive nature, of issuing a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court, in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728 , has observed that, ordinarily, it would be difficult to read into a general prayer, (i.e., issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may deem be deemed just and proper), a relief of a substantive nature of issuing a writ of mandamus; in the said case, the Supreme Court was inclined to examine the plea on merits, though reluctantly, on the special features in the said case; in the present case, considering the fact that the Respondent is specifically objecting to the relief of quashing of the letter dated 16.11.2018 (unlike in the case of Joshi Technologies ), and as the same is in the nature of a substantive relief, this Tribunal ought not to entertain such a prayer even on an application, on the threshold of reluctance at this interlocutory stage; to allow a relief not prayed for, merely because there is a plea to that effect, would create a wrong precedent allowing parties thereby to ignore the requirement to state its prayer, and file its appeal mainly on the basis of its pleadings, thereby setting at naught the requirement of a prayer clause in the appeal memo.
