9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Effect of delay in filing the application for striking off the additional written statement. 2. Whether the High Court could pass an order for striking off the additional written statement under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. 3. Justification of the High Court in setting aside the trial court's order without identifying jurisdictional or legal errors. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Effect of Delay in Filing the Application The appellants filed an additional written statement on 3.3.2004, which was accepted without objection from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondents did not seek leave to file further pleadings and led their evidence, completed in 2006. The application to strike off the additional written statement was filed after three years and six months, without explaining the delay. The trial court dismissed the application, noting that the respondents did not object initially and led their evidence based on the additional written statement. The High Court's casual dismissal of the delay issue was criticized for not seriously examining the delay's impact and the respondents' failure to object earlier. Issue 2: Striking Off Additional Written Statement under Order VI Rule 16 CPC Order VI Rule 16 CPC allows the court to strike out pleadings if they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial, embarrassing, or an abuse of the court process. The trial court found that the respondents' application did not meet these criteria. The High Court, however, struck off the additional written statement without considering Order VI Rule 16, assuming the plea was inconsistent with the predecessor's defense. The Supreme Court emphasized that striking off pleadings should be done with great care and only if the criteria under Order VI Rule 16 are met, which the High Court failed to assess. Issue 3: High Court's Justification in Setting Aside the Trial Court's Order The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not identify whether it was exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The High Court treated the matter as an appeal rather than a supervisory or certiorari jurisdiction, failing to follow principles laid down in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai. The High Court did not consider if the trial court's order involved a jurisdictional error, an error of law, or a substantial failure of justice, which are necessary for intervention under Articles 226 or 227. Additional Considerations The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the additional written statement was inconsistent with the original defense. It noted that the appellants' plea about the inventory proceedings and property allotment was not inconsistent with Abdul Razak's original defense. The Court reiterated that legal representatives could raise defenses appropriate to their character, including independent titles, as long as it does not oust the court's jurisdiction. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court's decision. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellants for unnecessary litigation. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and principles when considering striking off pleadings and exercising supervisory or certiorari jurisdiction.
|
