the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous

For convenience relevant portion from the judgement of Shiv Shakti is reproduced as under:-  "19. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statue is the determinative factor of legislative intent. Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to referents. The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature enacting it. (See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse) The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As observed in Crawford V. Spooner courts cannot aid the legislatures' defective phrasing of an Act, Court cannot add or meant, and by construction make up deficiencies which are left there. (See State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai nathjibhai Patel) It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. [See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) ltd.] Rules of interpretation do not permit courts to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of a doubtful meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. (Per Lord Loreburn, L.C. in Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans, quoted in Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah.) . A plain reading of s.115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is "yes" then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is "no" then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is interim in nature, cannot be the subject-matter of revision u/s. 115."  In the case reported in 2006 (24) LCD 452, Haider Abbas V. Additional District Judge, a Division Bench of this Court after considering various Apex Court judgments held that meaning assigned to the word or phrases in the Statute should not be construed otherwise than what is reflected from its plain reading. It has been further held by the Division Bench of this court that an explanation given in the section of a statute are being provided to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act to clarify the vagueness and to provide additional support to the dominant object of the act or provision in question. Explanation cannot change in any way or may interfere with the enactment or any part thereof. Accordingly, also effect of sub-section 1 of s.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be diluted.

Case Law:
Mohd. Murtaza @ Pahari v. Addl. District & Session Judge Court No. 1 Hardoi And Ors;

Citation:
2014 (2) ACR 190