ANNAYA KOCHA SHETTY Vs. LAXMIBAI NARAYAN SATOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Appeal arises from the Order dtd. 16/7/2018 in Civil Revision Application No. 247 of 2016 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay ("Impugned Order"), confirming the Judgment dtd. 17/8/2015 in appeal No. 547 of 2004 of the appellate bench. The Judgment dtd. 17/8/2015 reversed the judgment and decree dated 20/22/3/2004 in R.A.D. Suit No. 1860 of 1997 before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The LRs of the plaintiff are appellant nos. 1.1 to 1.4 in the Civil Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the deemed tenant/protected licensee of the first defendant in terms of sec. 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, as enforced from 1/2/1973 ("Bombay Rent Act"), for shop nos. 5 and 6, Shri Samarthashraya Vishranti Graha, Nanabhai Court, Dr. Babasahib Ambdedkar Marg, Hindmata Junction, Dadar, Bombay-400014 (for short, 'the Plaint Schedule'). The plaintiff also prayed for a restraint order against the defendants from interfering with or dispossessing the plaintiff from the Plaint Schedule. The suit was filed against Laxmibai Narayan Satose/defendant no.1, and M.S. Nanabhoy/defendant no.2. The plaintiff pleads that the first defendant is the landlady, and through her, the plaintiff claims a right of declaration as noted above. Admittedly, the second defendant is the owner of the Plaint Schedule. The Plaint Schedule was under a lease with the husband of the first defendant, and after the original tenant's demise, the first defendant continued as lessee of the Plaint Schedule. The first defendant was running a hotel under the name and style of "Shri Samarthashraya Vishranti Graha" ("the Hotel"). The first defendant, after the demise of her husband, ran the business for some time. But she was unable to run it successfully, so she allowed her brother 'Namdev Morye', to continue running the Hotel. The said arrangement did not prove to be advantageous to the first defendant. With this background, the plaintiff claims to have stepped in the Plaint Schedule and that, on 16/8/1967, an agreement styled for conducting hotel business was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The said arrangement was continued under subsequent agreements between the plaintiff and the first defendant. On 28/2/1997, the first defendant served notice to the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the business being run in the Plaint Schedule. With the above development, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs noted above.

(3.) The averments in the plaint are elaborate; commensurate to the detailed plaint, the written statement is equally elaborate. To wit, the plaint runs into eight pages, and the written statement is sixteen pages long. The resultant consequence is that, in the trial, much oral evidence is brought on record, resulting in a lengthy judgment by the trial court. The judgment of the appellate bench is equally lengthy, even though the core issue for consideration could have been captured in a nutshell by the appellate bench. A judgment should be coherent, systematic, and logically organised. It should enable the reader to trace the facts to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles. [Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 20 SCC 818] 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. [Scalia & B. Garner, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, pp. 81 (2008) Ch-35] 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. Having remarked on the need for brevity, we have a task on hand to deliver a brief judgment.