RAM SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OF lately, this Court has been noting that in large number of cases, rules pertaining to pleadings are being given a total burial. Loose, laconic and vague pleadings result, depending upon the vigilance of the Judge concerned, either plaints being nipped in the bud or suits being dragged on indefinitely.

(2.) INSTANT case falls in the first category. A vigilant Judge has seen through the vagueness of the case projected by the appellant/plaintiff. The plaint has been nipped in the bud. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2010 it has been held that since the plaint does not disclose a triable cause of action, the same stands rejected.

(3.) UNDER Rule 9 of Order 6, where the contents of a document are material, it is the duty of the party to state in the pleadings the effect thereof. In the latest pronouncement on the subject, being the decision reported as 2011 (6) SCALE 677 Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors. , highlighting how frivolous litigations are being instituted and how these frivolous litigations are choking the stream of justice, with reference to the importance of pleadings, in subpara A? of para 52 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed as under:- A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trail judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.