The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate and concise pleadings and curbing the casual filing of pleadings and the misuse of technology.

1. This application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by defendants seeking leave to amend the written statement reveals the casual and callous manner in which advocate of defendants acted while filing WS and the casual manner in which defendants themselves acted while filing WS and also shows fall in professional standards.

2. The amendment of the written statement is sought on the ground that while filing written statement in this suit, preliminary objections raised about the maintainability of the suit were prepared by “cut-copy-paste” from preliminary objections raised in another suit being CS(OS) No.612 of 2009. The preliminary objections raised by defendants are now required to be amended because they were not related to the present suit and were not in conformity with the defence raised by defendant no.1. Thus, defendants seek leave to amend the written statement so as to change the preliminary objections no.1,2, 5,7,9,10 and 11. On similar ground, defendants want to change and substitute paragraphs 2,4,7,8,10,14,15,16, 18,20,21,22,23, 24 and 28 of reply on merits. Deletion of preliminary objection no.12 is sought on the ground that this objection was in respect of notice under Section 80 CPC and was irrelevant for the purpose of this suit. It is further stated that even while filing reply on merits, “cut-copy-paste” method was adopted and paragraphs 1 to 16 of the written statement containing reply on merits was required to be amended for this reason. Defendants also want to add more paragraphs in the preliminary objections taken in WS to the maintainability of the present suit on the ground that the same got omitted because of preparation of the written statement by “cut-copy-paste” method. The defendants have given several new preliminary objections, which defendants want to add to the earlier preliminary objections and have given new paragraphs 2,4,7,8,10,14,15,16,18,20,21,22,23,24 and 28 of the reply on merits which they want to replace in place of existing paragraphs. 3. Order VI CPC gives guidelines to the parties as to how carefully the pleadings are to be prepared and how important they are. It provides that the pleadings must be accurate and contain only statement of facts in concise form. The dates, sums, numbers expressed in figures should also be given in words for the sake of accuracy. Necessary particulars are to be given by the parties in the pleadings in respect of alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust etc. The parties are also supposed to satisfy the conditions precedent or the purpose or the occurrence of an incident which in the eyes of a party was necessary for its case wherever contract, facts, amounts, figures and dates are denied, the denial must be expressed and specific and there should be no vague denial. If reference is made to contents of any document which is material, the effect of the document in brief must be set out. Similarly, the allegations of malice, fraudulent intention and other state of mind must be set out with clarity.

4. Order 6 Rule 14 CPC provides for signing of the pleadings by the parties or by duly authorized person. Rule 15 provides for verification of pleadings and the person verifying has to satisfy by reference to the numbered paragraphs whether he verifies the contents of his own knowledge or on the information. The person verifying has to furnish, in support of pleadings, an affidavit. All these and other provisions have been made in Order VI so that pleadings are taken seriously by the parties and their advocates and pleadings are not made in a casual and callous manner so as to waste precious time of the Courts. Despite such detailed and specific provisions in Order VI CPC it is strange to hear and entertain an application wherein an averment is made that written statement was prepared by “cut-copy-paste” method from another written statement and it was signed and verified by defendants as well as by counsel without even reading the contents of