The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Brijesh Gupta vs Smt. Saroj Gupta consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that once the principle of noscitur a sociis applies, the interpretation accorded by the judgment under review to the expression “unnecessary” would anyway be sustained, irrespective of whether the ejusdem generis principle would, or would not, apply.
Facts
This petition sought a review of the judgment passed by C. Hari Shankar in CM(M) 1189/2022. Mr. Brijesh Gupta, who is a practicing Counsel and who appeared as the petitioner in the present review petition, has restricted his prayer for review of the impugned judgment to two aspects.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was submitted this Court's application of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis is legally incorrect and evident from the record. By adopting the noscitur a sociis concept, it was argued that the court erred in interpreting the term "unnecessary" in O6R16(a) CPC. Noscitur a sociis applies only when a word's meaning is uncertain. Unnecessary implies "not necessary." As the meaning of the word “unnecessary” is clear, to understand the expression as used in the phrase "unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious", there was no scope for applying the noscitur a sociis principle.
Observations by the Court
The Bench noted that Noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis are exceptions to a statute's regular etymological connotation. The principle of noscitur a sociis states that a word is to be understood in light of the company it keeps, whereas the principle of ejusdem generis, which is a manifestation of noscitur a sociis, requires that a specific word found in the company of other words that constitute a genus be interpreted as belonging to the same genus. The claim that noscitur a sociis only applies when a word's meaning is ambiguous lacks logic. Even if the etymological meaning of a word is certain and well understood, if the noscitur a sociis principle applies, the etymological meaning must yield to the principle's understanding:
“The very basis of Mr. Gupta‘s contention is, therefore, fundamentally legally unsound. The word “unnecessary” is used in company with the words “scandalous”, “frivolous” and “vexatious”. As these words refer to a particular kind of pleading, the word “unnecessary”, understood noscitur a sociis, cannot be allowed its full play and effect and has to take color from the words “scandalous”, “frivolous” and “vexatious”.”
The ejusdem generis concept applies when specialized terms complement a general word. If they're a genus, the general word must be limited to that genus. If the accompanying words do not comprise a genus, the noscitur a sociis principle applies, and the general word must be understood in light of the related words. Since "scandalous", "frivolous", and "vexatious" are a genus of pleading, ejusdem generis applies.
“In any event, once the principle of noscitur a sociis applies, the interpretation accorded by the judgment under review to the expression “unnecessary” would anyway be sustained, irrespective of whether the ejusdem generis principle would, or would not, apply.”
No case for review of the decision on that ground, therefore, could be said to exist.
Regarding reconsideration of the judgment under review, it was contended that the word “pleadings” could not include the pleadings of someone who was not a party to the suit. The constant usage of "defendant" indicates that non-party pleadings are not "pleadings" within the meaning of CPC. It opined that O6R3 CPC doesn't limit pleadings to the plaintiff or defendant. Part 4 of Appendix-A to the CPC defines a format and employs "the defendant." The word "defendant" in the format cannot be construed as a statutory declaration that pleadings won't include third-party pleadings or as limiting O6R3 CPC. Suresh Gupta mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the written declaration that he was the defendant's general attorney. So, he was not a stranger to the conflict and his written statement cannot be excluded.
Judgment
Since no case on behalf of the Respondent was made out to review the judgment, the review petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case: Brijesh Gupta vs Smt. Saroj Gupta
Citation: CM(M) 1189/2022
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Decided on: 13th December 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
