Question

In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a court, while examining pleadings, finds certain averments to be unnecessary and capable of prejudicing or delaying the fair trial, the court, in such a case, may:

• A. Strike out such pleadings at any stage of proceedings.
• B. Direct amendment only after trial begins.
• C. Ignore such pleadings without passing any order.
• D. Reject the plaint in entirety.

Hint:

Remember the keywords of Order VI Rule 16: Scandalous, Frivolous, Vexatious, Prejudicial, Embarrassing, Delaying. Whenever these words appear in a question, think of the court's power to strike out pleadings.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Concept: Pleadings constitute the foundation of a civil suit. Their purpose is to clearly define the issues in dispute between the parties so that the court can effectively adjudicate the matter. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeks to ensure that pleadings contain only relevant and material facts. If pleadings include scandalous, unnecessary, frivolous, vexatious, or prejudicial allegations, they may obstruct the administration of justice and unnecessarily prolong litigation. Order VI Rule 16 CPC specifically empowers the court to remove such objectionable portions from the pleadings.

Step 1: Examining the statutory provision. Order VI Rule 16 provides that the court may strike out or amend any matter in any pleading if such matter:

• Is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

• Tends to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the suit;

• Constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.
The rule may be invoked either by the court on its own motion or upon an application made by a party.

Step 2: Applying the provision to the present case. The question states that certain averments are:

• Unnecessary; and

• Capable of prejudicing or delaying the fair trial.
These circumstances fall squarely within Order VI Rule 16. Therefore, the court possesses the authority to remove such allegations from the pleadings.

Step 3: Why the other options are incorrect.

• Option (B) is incorrect because the power may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings and is not restricted until after commencement of trial.

• Option (C) is incorrect because the court ordinarily passes an order striking out or amending the objectionable matter rather than merely ignoring it.

• Option (D) is incorrect because the existence of unnecessary pleadings does not justify rejection of the entire plaint.

Order VI Rule 16 CPC empowers the court to strike out unnecessary or prejudicial pleadings at any stage to ensure a fair and efficient trial.

Answer 2

This question is really asking what power a court has over pleadings that are unnecessary and likely to prejudice or delay a fair trial, so each option can be tested against the actual scope of that power under the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. Strike out such pleadings at any stage of proceedings: Order VI Rule 16 specifically empowers the court to strike out or amend any matter in a pleading that is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, or that tends to prejudice, embarrass, or delay a fair trial. This power is available at any stage of the proceedings, whether the suit is at an early stage or well into trial, and can be exercised on the court's own motion or on an application by a party.
2. Direct amendment only after trial begins: There is no rule confining this power to the post-trial-commencement stage; requiring the court to wait until trial begins before removing prejudicial or unnecessary matter would defeat the very purpose of the rule, which is to keep the pleadings clean well before the matter proceeds to trial.
3. Ignore such pleadings without passing any order: A court exercising this power does not simply overlook objectionable material; it acts formally by passing an order that strikes out or amends the offending portion, so that the record itself is corrected rather than silently disregarded.
4. Reject the plaint in entirety: The presence of some unnecessary or prejudicial averments within a pleading does not justify throwing out the entire plaint; the remedy is targeted at the offending portions specifically, leaving the rest of the pleading, and the suit itself, intact.

Only the option describing a targeted strike-out power exercisable at any stage matches what Order VI Rule 16 actually authorises.

The correct answer is therefore that the court may strike out such pleadings at any stage of proceedings.