JUDGMENT Referring to the suit, learned counsel for the appel1ant submitted that plaintiff-respondent, having not claimed the relief of declaration to the effect that the termination order dated 11.7.68 was illegal, she was not entitled to the decree as passed by the trial Court. The termination order dt. 11.7.68 has not been chal1engcd in the plaint. Referring to Ex. P. 9 the notice dated 24.1.80, as given by the plaintiff-respondent, is also silent on this point. Plaintiff- respondent did not seek declaratory relief that the termination order was illegal. The contention is to be viewed as it ought to be in it" proper perspective. In para 3 of the plaint the plaintiff-respondent has averred very clearly and categorically that the termination order was illegal and improper. She had preferred an appeal to the Director, Public Education, Govt. of M.P. who by order .dated 12.8.69 quashed the termination order and directed the defendant- appellant to reinstate plaintiff -respondent in service. Ex. P. 2 is the order dated 12.8.69 passed by the Director, Public Education. It has been averred by the plaintiff that in compliance of this order she reported on duty; but she was not allowed to join her duty. It is in this background that appellant's contention about lack of pleadings needs to be viewed to say that there is pleadings is not correct. There is pleading to the effect -- the only drawback in the prayer clause. But even there the plaintiff has prayed for such reliefs as may be available to her. Pleadings should be construed with such rigor and strictness, as is sought to be urged by the appellant's counsel. What is the object of pleadings It is to ascertain the real dispute between the parties. It is mainly on the principle that no parties should be taken by surprise with specific pleading should be made. It is not a case where there is no foundation of pleadings. The test when such an objection as regards lack or want of pleadings is taken, is to see whether the party has really been taken by surprise or prejudice. It is not a case where there is no foundation of pleadings. The test when such an objection as regards lack or want of pleadings is taken, is to see whether the party has really been taken by surprise or prejudice. The trend of cross-examination done by the defendant-appellant and the evidence adduced in support of its case clearly indicates that no such surprise or prejudice has been caused to the appellant In this connection it cannot be overlooked that the termination order is not only held to be illegal by the appellate authority who also directed plaintiff respondent's reinstatement in service. May be labouring under that impression, such a specific relief of a declaratory decree, was not claimed by the plaintiff. Parties went to the trial with full knowledge of each other's case. The Supreme Court in Ramswarup Gupta v. Bishan Narayan Inter College ( AIR 1987 SC 242 ) has held as "...sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead -the substance of the pleadings should be considered, whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of pleadings, instead the Court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that inspite of deficiency in the pleadings parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal." This view again been reiterated in a later decision of the Supreme Court as reported in smt. Rajbir Kaur and another v. Ms.S. Chokosiri and Co. AIR 1988 SC 1845 . The contention about the lack of pleadings, as advanced by the appellant, in view of the foregoing discussion deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. AIR 1987 SC 242 and AIR 1988 SC 1845 followed. Appeal dismissed.