Read Time: 05 minutes
The court observed that the Trial Court's directive was solely based on the length of the plaint without identifying any specific content as unnecessary or scandalous. He emphasized that the intended objective of Order VI Rule 16 CPC is not to enforce arbitrary page limits but to ensure pleadings are concise and relevant.
The Delhi High Court, recently, emphasized that Trial Courts cannot arbitrarily direct the public to file a plaint limited to five pages. The court emphasized that in any legal proceeding, it is essential that the plaint be succinct and focused on pertinent information. However, while brevity is often valued, it should not compel a court to mandate the public to confine a pleading to merely five pages.
The bench of Justice Manoj Jain held, “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”.
An individual named Jos Chiramal initiated a suit seeking the recovery of approximately Rs. 16 lakhs against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The core matter revolved around the Trial Court's order directing Chiramal to file a new plaint restricted to five pages, citing the excessive length of the original 45-page document. This order was issued under the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows for the striking out of pleadings.
The court referred to the case of Ajay Arjun Singh v Sharadendu Tiwari & Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 219, which clarified the grounds under Order VI Rule 16 CPC for striking out pleadings. The Court highlighted that each ground—unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial, embarrassing, or delaying the fair trial—must be distinctly evaluated.
Therefore, the court set aside the Trial Court's order, stating that the directive to limit the plaint to five pages was not justified under the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 CPC. The court underscored the importance of providing specific reasons when exercising such powers, ensuring that only irrelevant or prejudicial content should be struck out, rather than imposing arbitrary limitations.
The court further directed the trial courts to carefully apply the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 CPC, providing detailed reasons when striking out pleadings.
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order.
For Petitioner: Advocate Ramesh Kumar For Respondent: Advocates Vikas Goel, Mayank Grover and Prathibha Vyas
Case Title: Jos Chiramel v National Highways Authority Of India (2024:DHC:4966)
Please Login or Register
