The Delhi High Court recently overturned a trial court's directive that required the plaintiff to submit a new, condensed complaint of only five pages instead of the original forty-five pages in a recovery suit against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

Justice Manoj Jain acknowledged the need for conciseness in legal suits but emphasized that it might be impractical to include all relevant details within a mere five pages.

"Undoubtedly, any suit needs to be concise and should contain only the relevant details. It is rightly said that brevity is the soul of wit. But that does not mean that any Court would direct any plaintiff to file a plaint containing only five pages. At times, it may not be, even otherwise, possible to mention all the relevant details within the above limit," the order dated July 4 stated.

Before the trial court, the petitioner had filed a suit seeking the recovery of approximately ₹16 lakhs. During the arguments concerning territorial jurisdiction, the trial court, exercising its power under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), suo moto directed the plaintiff to submit a new plaint limited to five pages instead of the original 45 pages.

The High Court noted that according to the rule, pleadings can be struck off if they are deemed unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or likely to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the suit, or if they constitute an abuse of the court's process.

It noted that the trial court had simply remarked that the plaint consisted of 45 pages and, as a result, it was unable to address the issues raised.

Accordingly, the Court overturned the order. However, it clarified that the trial court retained the authority to invoke Order VI Rule 16, provided it adhered to the rule's intent and provided specific reasons for striking off pleadings.

Case Title: Jos Chiramel v National Highways Authority of India