Supreme Court Flags Lenghty Pleadings & Use Of AI-Generated Statements, Asks Courts To Strike Out Unnecessary Pleadings In Civil Suits

The Supreme Court expressed dismay over the use of long and bulky pleadings in a civil trial which led to the passing of lengthy judgments by the trial court and appellate court, that could have been summed up concisely.

The Court also flagged the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), saying that the Courts are also confronted with AI-generated or computer-generated statements.

Thus, the court advocated the use of Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC, which empowers the court to strike out or amend any pleadings finding it to be unnecessary, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process of law. Pleadings be made brief and concise, the Court stated.

Lately, this Court has been experiencing meandering pleadings irrespective of the nature of the dispute. We are reminded of Abraham Lincoln's ode to a lawyer friend – “[h]e can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met.” Such lengthy pleadings would even upset Polonius from Shakespeare's Hamlet. Every word that is not a help is a hindrance because it distracts. A reader who realizes that a brief is wordy will skim it; one who finds a brief terse and concise will read every word. The parties to a suit ought not to compel the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and strike out unnecessary or frivolous pleadings. The effort of pleading and evidence should be to be concise to the cause and must not confuse the cause. The lengthy pleadings and avoidable evidence are well within the scrutiny of trial courts, and, at the right stage, must be regulated within four corners of the law. Such an approach by trial courts would like a stitch in time, save nine. Long and drawn-out pleadings will run the risk of having a cascading effect on the appellate and revisional courts. Meandering pleadings will land up with laden weight in SLPs, making the narrative difficult. The time has come for courts to invoke the jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 16 and make litigation workable. Courts are also confronted with AI-generated or computer-generated statements. While technology is useful in enhancing efficiency and efficacy, the placid pleadings will disorient the cause in a case. It is time that the approach to pleadings is re-invented and re-introduced to be brief and precise.

Background

The aforesaid observation was made by a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti while deciding the case concerning the dispute over the tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act, 1973.

In this case, the pleadings were made in detail, where the plaint was running into eight pages, and the written statement was sixteen pages long.

The resultant consequence was that, in 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, the Court noted.

In this context, the Court passed the aforesaid observation noting that the trial courts must play a proactive role in striking out unnecessary pleadings, as concise pleadings enable courts to deliver "stitch in time" judgments, reducing case backlogs and saving judicial time by not placing burden on the higher judiciary to read long and drawn-out pleadings which would run the risk of having a cascading effect on the appellate and revisional courts.

Case Title: ANNAYA KOCHA SHETTY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VERSUS LAXMIBAI NARAYAN SATOSE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS & OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 411

Click here to read/download the judgment