The Supreme Court has asked the trial courts to play a proactive role in reducing case backlogs and saving judicial time by striking out or amending any unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC.
Expressing its strong displeasure over long and bulky pleadings in a civil trial, the Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti observed that such drawn-out pleadings not only led to the passing of lengthy judgments, but also ran the risk of having a cascading effect on the appellate and revisional courts by burdening the higher judiciary.
The top court of the country further flagged the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), stating that the courts were also confronted with AI-generated or computer-generated statements.
Noting that this Court has been experiencing meandering pleadings irrespective of the nature of the dispute, the Apex Court observed that every word which was not of help, was a hindrance because it distracted the court.
A reader would prefer a terse and concise brief compared to a long one since he would not have to skim it and would be able to read every word, noted the Bench.
The Apex Court said that since lengthy pleadings and avoidable evidence fell within the scrutiny of trial courts, they must be regulated at the right stage within the four corners of the law. The trial courts should adopt the approach of a stitch in time saves nine, it added.
Meandering pleadings landed up with laden weight in SLPs, making the narrative difficult. The time has come for courts to invoke jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 16 and make litigation workable, it added.
Noting that technology was useful in enhancing efficiency and efficacy, the top court of the country said placid pleadings would disorient the cause in a case. It stressed on re-inventing and re-introducing the pleadings to be brief and precise.
Hearing a case related to tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act, 1973, the Bench observed that the pleadings were made in detail, where the plaint was running into eight pages, while the written statement was 16 pages long.
The Bench noted that during the trial, much oral evidence was brought on record, resulting in a lengthy judgment by the trial court. The judgment of the appellate bench was equally lengthy, even though the core issue for consideration could have been captured in a nutshell by the appellate bench, it added.
The post Supreme Court directs trial courts to amend bulky pleadings to save judicial time appeared first on India Legal.