Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 16 — Striking off pleadings — Scope at pre-registration stage
Before numbering of suit, Court cannot mechanically direct striking off of pleadings as “irrelevant” unless they are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious — Narration of background facts forming part of cause of action cannot be treated as irrelevant — Objection that only certain paragraphs are relevant held factually incorrect.
[Paras 9–10]
Civil Procedure — Return of plaint — Improper exercise of jurisdiction
Return of plaint without considering explanation offered by plaintiff amounts to non-application of mind — Repeated return of plaint on same objections, despite clarification, unsustainable — Such return interferable under Article 227.
[Paras 8, 11]
Defamation — Pleadings — Matrimonial proceedings
Allegations made in matrimonial pleadings can constitute cause of action for defamation — Suit for damages need not await outcome of matrimonial proceedings — Office objection to maintainability on that ground untenable.
[Para 4]
Order VI Rule 16 CPC — Discretion — Limits
Power to strike out pleadings is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly — Court cannot compel plaintiff to delete pleadings merely because it considers them excessive or unnecessary at threshold — Matter to be examined during trial.
[Paras 5, 10]
Attestation of plaint — Execution abroad — Competent authority
Plaint executed abroad and attested by practising solicitor in United Kingdom — Solicitors in England and Wales are Commissioners for Oaths — Such attestation is valid — Objection on competency of attestation not sustainable.
[Paras 6, 11]
Supervisory jurisdiction — Article 227, Constitution of India
High Court justified in interfering where trial Court refuses to number plaint on erroneous factual assumptions and hyper-technical objections — Direction to number suit issued.
[Paras 8, 11]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders dated 08-07-2025 and 28-07-2025, by which the Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda repeatedly returned the plaint in O.S.(SR) No.4019 of 2025 without numbering the suit.
[Paras 1–2, 8]
2. Background Facts
The petitioner/plaintiff is the wife of the respondent/defendant. Marriage was solemnised on 02-09-2023. The respondent filed FCOP No.404 of 2024 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, making serious allegations including illicit relationship. Alleging harassment and defamatory allegations, the petitioner instituted a civil suit for damages of ₹1 crore.
[Paras 3–4]
3. Objections Raised by Trial Court
The trial Court raised objections including:
only paragraphs 24 and 25 of the plaint were relevant;
other pleadings were irrelevant and liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC;
clarification required regarding attestation of plaint signed in the U.K.
[Paras 4–5]
4. Explanation Offered by Plaintiff
The plaintiff resubmitted the plaint explaining that:
all paragraphs formed a continuous and connected narrative;
striking off pleadings would destroy continuity of cause of action;
attestation was done by Srinivasa Reddy Tadvai, a practising solicitor in England and Wales, who is statutorily a Commissioner for Oaths and competent to attest signatures.
[Para 6]
5. Error in Trial Court’s Approach
Despite detailed explanation, the trial Court again returned the plaint stating that objections were not complied with, without examining the explanation. The High Court held this to be a clear case of non-application of mind.
[Paras 7–8]
6. Findings on “Irrelevant Pleadings”
On perusal of the plaint, the High Court found that:
paragraphs narrating relationship, marriage, dowry talks, transfer of respondent, matrimonial dispute and divorce petition were all foundational facts;
the observation that only paras 24 and 25 were relevant was factually incorrect;
such pleadings could not be struck off at threshold.
[Paras 9–10]
7. Order VI Rule 16 — Improper Invocation
The Court reiterated that Order VI Rule 16 CPC:
cannot be used to rewrite plaint at pre-registration stage;
discretion must be exercised cautiously;
relevance of pleadings is a matter for trial.
[Paras 5, 10]
8. Attestation Abroad
The High Court accepted the explanation regarding attestation in the U.K. and held that a practising solicitor in England and Wales is competent to attest signatures, and therefore the objection lacked merit.
[Paras 6, 11]
9. Final Directions
The Civil Revision Petition was allowed.
The impugned order dated 28-07-2025 was set aside.
The Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda was directed to number the suit if otherwise in order, without insisting on deletion of pleadings, and to dispose of the suit on merits.
[Para 11]
Ratio Decidendi
A plaint cannot be repeatedly returned or refused numbering on the ground that only certain paragraphs are “relevant”. Background and narrative pleadings forming part of cause of action cannot be struck off at threshold under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, and attestation of plaint executed abroad by a practising solicitor in the U.K. is valid. Repeated return of plaint without considering explanation warrants supervisory interference under Article 227.
No comments:
Post a Comment