Whether the court can direct striking out of pleading if suit is partly not maintainable?

We are afraid that this is a misreading of the Madras High Court judgment. It was only on the peculiar facts of that case that want of Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure against one Defendant led to the rejection of the plaint as a whole, as no cause of action would remain against the other Defendants. This cannot elevate itself into a Rule of law, that once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11. In all such cases, if the plaint survives against certain Defendants and/or properties, Order VII Rule 11 will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial.

11. If only a portion of the plaint, as opposed to the plaint as a whole is to be struck out, Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. Order VI Rule 16 states as follows:

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

c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. {Para 10}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10802 of 2017.

Decided On: 21.08.2017

Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Author: Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.

Citation: 2017:INSC:783 : (2018) 11 SCC 780, MANU/SC/1098/2017.

Print Page

Right to court to reject plaint Vs Right to court to strike off pleading

 We do not deem it necessary to elaborate on all other
arguments as we are inclined to accept the objection of the
appellant(s) that the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of
powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only
in respect of one of the defendant(s). In other words, the plaint
has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power
Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Indeed, the learned Single Judge
rejected this objection raised by the appellant(s) by relying on
the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court.
However, we find that the decision of this Court in the case of
Sejal Glass Limited (supra) is directly on the point. In that
case, an application was filed by the defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC stating that the plaint disclosed no cause of
action. The civil court held that the plaint is to be bifurcated as
it did not disclose any cause of action against the director’s

defendant(s) 2 to 4 therein. On that basis, the High Court had
opined that the suit can continue against defendant No.1company
alone. The question considered by this Court was
whether such a course is open to the civil court in exercise of
powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. The Court answered
the said question in the negative by adverting to several
decisions on the point which had consistently held that the
plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. The Court
held that it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular
portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s)
and continue the same against the others. In no uncertain terms
the Court has held that if the plaint survives against certain
defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC will
have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then
proceed to trial.


13. Indubitably, the plaint can and must be rejected in exercise
of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on account of noncompliance
of mandatory requirements or being replete with any
institutional deficiency at the time of presentation of the plaint,
ascribable to clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. In
other words, the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or
can be rejected as a whole but not in part. In that sense, the
relief claimed by respondent No.1 in the notice of motion(s)
which commended to the High Court, is clearly a jurisdictional
error. The fact that one or some of the reliefs claimed against
respondent No.1 in the concerned suit is barred by Section 34 of
2002 Act or otherwise, such objection can be raised by invoking
other remedies including under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC at the
appropriate stage. 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ……….. OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.31579 of 2018)

Madhav Prasad Aggarwal Vs Axis Bank Ltd. 
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
Dated:July 01, 2019.

Print Page

What are parameters for deciding application for rejection of plaint and application for striking off pleading?

The rejection of plaint follows the procedure on admitting plaint or even before admitting the same, if the court on presentation of the plaint is of the view that the same does not fulfill the statutory and institutional requirements referred to in Clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11. The power bestowed in the court in terms of Rule 11 may also be exercised by the court on a formal application moved by the Defendant after being served with the summons to appear before the Court. Be that as it may, the application Under Order VII Rule 11 deserves consideration at the threshold.

12. On the other hand, the application for striking out pleadings in terms of Order VI Rule 16 may be resorted to by the Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) at any stage of the proceedings, as is predicated in the said provision. The pleading(s) can be struck off by the Court on grounds specified in Clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 16.

13. Indeed, if the Defendant moves two separate applications at the same time, as in this case, it would be open to the court in a given case to consider both the applications together or independent of each other. If the court decides to hear the application Under Order VII Rule 11 in the first instance, the court would be obliged to consider the plaint as filed as a whole. But if the court decides to proceed with the application Under Order VI Rule 16 for striking out the pleadings before consideration of the application Under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint, on allowing the former application after striking out the relevant pleadings then the court must consider the remainder pleadings of the plaint in reference to the postulates of Order VII Rule 11, for determining whether the plaint (after striking out pleadings) deserves to be rejected in limine.

14. In the present case, the High Court has presumably adopted the latter course. It first proceeded to examine the application for striking out the pleadings in paragraphs 2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition being frivolous and vexatious and also because the same did not disclose any cause of action. And having accepted that prayer, it proceeded to reject the election petition on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action. However, we find that the High Court has muddled the analysis of the pleadings. It merely focused on the pleadings in paragraphs 2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition. It is one thing to strike out the stated pleadings being frivolous and vexatious but then it does not follow that the rest of the pleadings which would still remain, were not sufficient to proceed with the trial or disclose any cause of action, whatsoever, for rejecting the plaint as a whole in limine or to hold that it did not warrant a trial. No such finding can be discerned from the judgment under appeal. Be that as it may, the High Court committed manifest error in striking out the pleadings in paragraphs 2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition, being frivolous and vexatious by considering the factual matrix noted therein as untenable on merit. For striking out the pleadings or for that matter, rejecting the plaint (election petition), the High Court is not expected to decide the merits of the controversy referred to in the election petition. We shall elaborate on this aspect a little later.

 To put it differently, the approach of the High Court in considering the two applications is, in our opinion, manifestly erroneous, if not perverse. For, it has ventured into the arena of analysis of the matter on merit. That is a prohibited area at this stage. Since the conclusion reached by the High Court that the pleadings in paragraphs 2 and 9 to 11 of the election petition are frivolous and vexatious is untenable, it would necessarily follow that the election petition, as filed, will have to be examined as a whole without subtracting any portion therefrom. If so read, it is not possible to take a view that the same does not disclose any cause of action at all. On this finding, the application preferred by Respondent No. 1 for rejection of election petition in limine Under Order VII Rule 11, cannot be countenanced and must also fail.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 9466-9468 of 2016

Decided On: 21.03.2018

Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju Vs. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 14 SCC 1

Print Page

Leading judgment on basic principles to be followed by court for striking off pleadings

Order VI Rule 16 CPC which empowers the Court to strike out the pleadings reads thus:

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.

16. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that the court's power to strike out any pleading at any stage of the proceedings can be exercised in either of the three eventualities i.e., where the pleadings are considered by the court unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or where the court is satisfied that the pleadings tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise considered as an abuse of the court.

17. Normally, a court cannot direct or dictate the parties as to what should be their pleading and how they should prepare their pleadings. If the parties do not violate any statutory provision, they have the freedom to make appropriate averments and raise arguable issues. The court can strike off the pleadings only if it is satisfied that the same are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or the court is satisfied that suit is an abuse of the process of the court. Since the striking off pleadings has serious adverse impact on the rights of the concerned party, the power to do so has to be exercised with great care and circumspection. In Knowles v. Roberts (1888) 38 Ch D, 263, Boven, L.J. Observed:

It seems to me that the rule that the Court is not to dictate to parties how they should frame their case, is one that ought always to be preserved sacred. But that rule is, of course, subject to this modification and limitation, that the parties must not offend against the rules of pleading which have been laid down by the law; and if a party introduces a pleading which is unnecessary, and it tends to prejudice, embarrass and delay the trial of the action, it then becomes a pleading which is beyond his right. It is a recognized principle that a defendant may claim ex debito justitiae to have the plaintiff's claim presented in an intelligible form, so that he may not be embarrassed in meeting it; and the Court ought to be strict even to severity in taking care to prevent pleadings from degenerating into the old oppressive pleadings of the Court of Chancery.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2991 of 2008)

Decided On: 07.01.2010

Abdul Razak (D) through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.

Citation:  (2010) 2 SCC 432

Print Page

When court should not strike off additional written statement of defendant?

Therefore, when a defendant had raised a new plea, which is not covered in the original written statement or an inconsistent plea, against the original written statement, the same cannot be described or labeled as prejudicial defence or vexatious or scandalous, as understood under Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. If the plaintiff/revision petitioner was aggrieved by the court's order, in granting permission to file the additional written statement, the remedy would have been to challenge the same and not to file a petition under Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C., to strike out the entire defence.

Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C. reads:

"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."

Therefore, considering the inconsistent stand taken by the defendant alone, the additional written statement cannot be described as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Even if a case is decided previously against the first defendant or her husband, whether that would operate as res judicata or something like, has to be decided, if raised and on the basis of the previous decision, summarily a defendant cannot be prevented from raising the said plea. If there is any allegation, deviating from the subject matter of the suit, extraneously aiming against the individual, not connected with the subject matter for decision, in my opinion, then only it could be said, the pleadings are unnecessary or scandalous , frivolous vexatious, attracting Rule 16(a). In this case, as seen from the additional written statement, the respondent herein had questioned the status of the plaintiff, locus standi to maintain the suit for eviction, etc. and these matters have to be decided only at the time of the trial and the same cannot be struck out.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

C.R.P. No. 2318 of 2003

Decided On: 25.06.2004

Sri Srinivasmurthy Mandiram Vs. Mrs. Gnanasoundari

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Thanikachalam, J.

Citation: AIR 2004 Mad 518

Print Page

Basic principles to be followed by court for striking out pleading

 Before we examine the various questions that arise in this appeal, we think it profitable to examine the scheme of Order VI, 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

(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.

6. The very purpose of the Rule is to ensure that parties to a legal proceeding are entitled ex debito justitia to have the case against them presented in an intelligible form so that they may not be embarrassed in meeting the case.

7. In the context of the application of Order VI Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure to the election petition, this Court in Bhikaji Keshao Joshi and Anr. v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 610 held that a court examining an election petition may order striking out of charges which are vague.

8. In Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and Ors. MANU/SC/0529/2012 : (2012) 7 SCC 788, this Court considered the scope of an application under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. Such an application was filed by the returned candidate praying that the election petition be dismissed for non-disclosure of any cause of action. This Court opined that for the purpose of determining such an application, the averments in the election petition must be taken to be factually correct and thereafter examine whether such averments furnish the cause of action for granting the relief to the Petitioner. Such a conclusion was recorded on the basis of the law laid down in an earlier judgment of this Court4. We are of the opinion the same principles of law are applicable even while adjudicating the application under Order VI Rule 16.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8254 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4512 of 2015)

Decided On: 23.08.2016

Ajay Arjun Singh Vs. Sharadendu Tiwari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Jasti Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Citation:(2016)15 SCC219.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Power to strike off pleading should be exercised with great care and circumspection

Normally, a court cannot direct or dictate the parties as to what should be their pleading and how they should prepare their pleadings. If the parties do not violate any statutory provision, they have the freedom to make appropriate averments and raise arguable issues. The court can strike off the pleadings only if it is satisfied that the same are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or the court is satisfied that suit is an abuse of the process of the court. Since the striking off pleadings has serious adverse impact on the rights of the concerned party, the power to do so has to be exercised with great care and circumspection. In  

Knowles v. Roberts (1888) 38 Ch D, 263, Boven, L.J. Observed: It seems to me that the rule that the Court is not to dictate to parties how they should frame their case, is one that ought always to be preserved sacred. But that rule is, of course, subject to this modification and limitation, that the parties must not offend against the rules of pleading which have been laid down by the law; and if a party introduces a pleading which is unnecessary, and it tends to prejudice, embarrass and delay the trial of the action, it then becomes a pleading which is beyond his right. It is a recognized principle that a defendant may claim ex debito justitiae to have the plaintiff's claim presented in an intelligible form, so that he may not be embarrassed in meeting it; and the Court ought to be strict even to severity in taking care to prevent pleadings from degenerating into the old oppressive pleadings of the Court of Chancery.

Supreme Court of India

Abdul Razak (D) Thr.Lrs. & Ors. vs Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors. on 7 January, 2010

Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly

Citation;2010(2)ALD136(SC), 2010 2 AWC(Supp)1135SC, 2010(2)BomCR286, 2010(1)CTC466, JT2010(1)SC508, (2010)2MLJ198(SC), 2010MPLJ272(SC), 2010(1)SCALE267, (2010)2SCC432, [2010]1SCR899, 2010(2)UJ496

Print Page