Delhi High Court
Jos Chiramel vs National Highways Authority Of India & ... on 22 July, 2024
$~74, 84 & 86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 22nd July, 2024
+ CM(M) 2970/2024 & CM APPL. 40732/2024
JOS CHIRAMEL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar with Mr. Sarthak
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kartikay Yadav, Standing
Counsel for NHAI
+ CM(M) 2981/2024 & CM APPL. 40851/2024
JOS CHIRAMEL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar with Mr. Sarthak
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kartikay Yadav, Standing
Counsel for NHAI
+ CM(M) 2983/2024 & CM APPL. 40874/2024
JOS CHIRAMEL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar with Mr. Sarthak
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kartikay Yadav, Standing
Counsel for NHAI
Signature Not Verified CM(M) 2970/2024, 1
Digitally Signed other connected petitions
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:23.07.2024
15:58:49
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent/NHAI appears on
advance notice and accepts notice.
2. Similar matter was taken up by this Court earlier on 04.07.2024
while dealing with CM(M) 2846/2024.
3. Said matter was also essentially between the same parties and
the impugned order is also verbatim.
4. While taking up said petition, this Court had set aside the
impugned order and made certain observations.
5. It will be appropriate if the aforesaid order is extracted herein:-
"4. Petitioner herein had filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs.16
lacs approximately. However, when the matter was at the stage of
arguments on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, the learned Trial
Court, exercising its power under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, suo moto,
directed the plaintiff to file plaint afresh directing it to be containing
only five pages, instead of 45 pages.
5. The impugned order is very short and is extracted as under:-
"Matter is at the stage of arguments on the aspect of territorial
jurisdiction. The plaint in this case runs to 45 pages. This Court
can't settle the issues because of such a lengthy pleadings.
Provisions of Order VI Rule 16 CPC provides striking out
the pleadings. Order VI Rule 16 CPC is reproduced as
under:
"Order VI Rule 16 CPC: Striking out pleadings:
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings
order to be struck out or amended any matter in
any pleading-
(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous,
frivolous or vexatious, or
(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or
delay the fair trial of the suit, or
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of
the Court."
Digitally Signed other connected petitions
By exercising my power under Order VI Rule 16 of the
CPC the plaintiff is directed to file a plaint which contains
only the FIVE pages. Let the plaintiff comply with the
directions of this Court and let him to restrain the plaint
within the five pages only.
Case adjourned to 09.09.2024."
6. Learned Trial Court did extract the relevant Rule, i.e, Order
VI Rule 16 CPC but a bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule would
indicate that direction regarding striking off any averment in the
pleadings can be made if such 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.
7. In the case in hand, the learned Trial Court has merely
observed that the plaint was running into 45 pages and, therefore, it
was unable to settle the issues.
8. This is never the intended objective behind striking off the
pleadings.
9. 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.
10. It is noticed that the learned Trial Court has not indicated
whether any part of the pleading was unnecessary, scandalous,
frivolous, vexatious or tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair
trial of the suit or was abuse of process of the Court. The order has
been passed, merely, because of the fact that the plaint was little
lengthy.
11. Reference be made to the judgment in Ajay Arjun Singh vs.
Sharadendu Tiwari & Ors.: (2016) 15 SCC 219, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"4. Before we examine the various questions that arise in
this appeal, we think it profitable to examine the scheme of
Order 6 Rule 16.
"16. Striking out pleadings.--The Court may at any stage
of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any
matter in any pleading--
(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or
vexatious, or
(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the
fair trial of the suit, or
Digitally Signed other connected petitions
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the
Court."
It authorises the court to order that any matter in any
pleading before it be struck out on the grounds specified
under clauses (a), (b) and (c). Each one of them is a
distinct ground. For example, clause (a) authorises the
court to strike out the pleadings which may be (i)
unnecessary, (ii) scandalous, (iii) frivolous, (iv) vexatious.
If a pleading or part of it is to be struck out on the ground
that it is unnecessary, the test to be applied is whether the
allegation contained in that pleading is relevant and
essential to grant the relief sought. Allegations which are
unconnected with the relief sought in the proceeding fall
under this category. Similarly, if a pleading is to be struck
out on the ground that it is scandalous, the court must first
record its satisfaction that the pleading is scandalous in
the legal sense and then enquire whether such scandalous
allegation is called for or necessary having regard to the
nature of the relief sought in the proceeding. The authority
of the court under clause (c) is much wider. Obviously,
such authority must be exercised with circumspection and
on the basis of some rational principles. The very purpose
of the Rule is to ensure that parties to a legal proceeding
are entitled ex debito justitiae to have the case against
them presented in an intelligible form so that they may not
be embarrassed in meeting the case."
12. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside.
13. However, it would still be open to learned Trial Court to, again,
invoke its powers under Order VII Rule 16 CPC but if the Court
chooses to exercise such power then keeping in mind the intended
objective behind such provision, it is expected that it would give
reason specifying as to which part was required to be struck off and
why.
14. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms."
6. Since the impugned order is virtually the same in the present
three petitions, all the three petitions are also disposed of in the same
manner and the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 is set aside.
7. It is reiterated that it would still be open to learned Trial
Court to, again, invoke its powers under Order VII Rule 16 CPC but
Digitally Signed other connected petitions
if the Court chooses to exercise such power then keeping in mind
the intended objective behind such provision, it is expected that it
would give reason specifying as to which part was required to be
struck off and why.
8. All the three petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JULY 22, 2024
st
Digitally Signed other connected petitions
