Justice Manoj Jain acknowledged that a suit should be concise but stressed that it might not be possible to mention all relevant details within just five pages.
The Delhi High Court recently quashed a trial court order directing filing of a fresh plaint containing only five pages instead of forty-five pages in a suit for recovery against National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). [Jos Chiramel v National Highways Authority of India]
Justice Manoj Jain acknowledged that a suit should be concise but stressed that it might not be possible to mention all relevant details within just five pages.
"Undoubtedly, any suit needs to be concise and should contain only the relevant details. It is rightly said that brevity is the soul of wit. But that does not mean that any Court would direct any plaintiff to file a plaint containing only five pages. At times, it may not be, even otherwise, possible to mention all the relevant details within the above limit," the order dated July 4 stated.
Before the trial court, the petitioner had filed a suit seeking recovery of approximately ₹16 lakhs. During the arguments concerning territorial jurisdiction, the trial court, exercising its power under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), suo moto directed the plaintiff to submit a new plaint restricted to five pages instead of the original 45 pages.
The High Court observed that a bare perusal of the rule showed that striking off pleadings can be directed if the averment is found to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or which tends to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
It noted that the trial court had merely observed that the plaint ran into 45 pages and, therefore, it was unable to settle the issues.
"This is never the intended objective behind striking off the pleadings," the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order. It however clarified that the trial court was free to exercise its power under Order VI Rule 16 as long as it would keep the objective of the provision in mind and specify reasons for directing striking off of pleadings.
[Read Order]
Attachment
Jos Chiramel v National Highways Authority of India.pdf