(August Attorneys LLP | Insights & Analysis)
Date: April 9, 2025
In the hallowed halls of justice, clarity and precision are paramount. Yet, a recent trend has drawn the pointed attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – the growing prevalence of excessively long and meandering pleadings in civil litigation. At August Attorneys LLP, we believe that effective advocacy is built on clarity, not clutter. This principle resonates deeply with the Supreme Court’s recent observations in the case of Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) Through LRs v. Laxmibai Narayan Satose Since Deceased Through LRs & Others (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 411), which serve as a crucial reminder for litigants and legal professionals alike.
The Supreme Court’s Dismay: When More is Less
The Apex Court, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti, expressed significant concern over “long and bulky pleadings” that obscure rather than illuminate the core issues of a dispute. The Court noted that such practices inevitably lead to lengthy, convoluted judgments from trial and appellate courts, consuming precious judicial time and hindering the efficient administration of justice.
Drawing parallels, the Court invoked Abraham Lincoln’s wry observation about a lawyer who could “compress the most words into the smallest ideas,” and even suggested such verbosity would upset Shakespeare’s Polonius, famous for his line “brevity is the soul of wit.” The message is clear: every word that doesn’t help, hinders. Wordy briefs risk being skimmed; concise briefs command attention.
In the specific case before the Court (a tenancy dispute under the Bombay Rent Act), an 8-page plaint met with a 16-page written statement, leading to extensive oral evidence and predictably lengthy judgments at both the trial and appellate stages. The Court lamented that the core issue could have been captured “in a nutshell.”
The Antidote: Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC
The Supreme Court powerfully advocated for the proactive use of Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This provision empowers courts to strike out or amend any pleading (or part thereof) found to be:
- Unnecessary
- Scandalous
- Frivolous
- Vexatious
- Tending to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the suit
- Otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court
The Court emphasised that litigants should not compel the courts to exercise this power; rather, pleadings should inherently be brief, precise, and focused on the material facts constituting the cause of action or defence. The goal is to clarify the cause, not confuse it.
The “Stitch in Time”: Benefits of Concise Pleadings
The judgment highlights the cascading effect of verbose pleadings. Lengthy initial documents lead to extensive evidence, protracted trials, bulky judgments, and overburdened appellate courts struggling with “laden weight” in Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).
By contrast, concise pleadings, coupled with trial courts actively regulating unnecessary content under Order 6 Rule 16, act as a “stitch in time, save nine.” This approach promises:
- Faster Trials: Focusing on core issues shortens trial duration.
- Clearer Judgments: Concise arguments lead to more focused judicial decisions.
- Reduced Backlog: Efficient trials ease the burden on the entire judicial system.
- Effective Appeals: Clearer lower court records simplify appellate review.
- Cost Efficiency: Less time spent drafting and arguing over irrelevant points saves client resources.
A Note on Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Intriguingly, the Court also flagged the emergence of “AI-generated or computer-generated statements.” While acknowledging technology’s potential to enhance efficiency, the Bench cautioned that unrefined, “placid” (perhaps meaning prolix or unfocused) AI outputs could “disorient the cause.” This serves as a timely reminder: AI is a tool, not a replacement for skilled legal judgment and drafting precision. Its use must enhance, not detract from, the clarity and conciseness mandated by effective legal practice.
Disclaimer:
This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or solicitation of work. The information provided herein is general in nature and may not apply to specific factual or legal circumstances. Viewing this post or contacting August Attorneys LLP through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers and law firms are not permitted to solicit work or advertise. This blog is meant solely for the purpose of providing information and updates on legal developments.