Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Brijesh Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Saroj Gupta - Respondent
CM(M) 1189 of 2022
Decided On : 13-12-2022
The principles of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis guide the interpretation of terms in legal pleadings, restricting the meaning of 'unnecessary' in the context of Order VI Rule 16 to align with prejudicial terms.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 16 - Review of judgment - The review application seeks reconsideration of earlier decision on the interpretation of 'unnecessary' in pleadings context. Court emphasized the principles of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis in its interpretation. (Paras 24-25, 4-5)
(B) Pleadings - Distinction drawn between pleadings of parties involved versus third-party pleadings, with emphasis on the inclusion of such pleadings under the CPC framework. (Paras 20-23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a review of a previous judgment regarding the grounds for striking out pleadings deemed unnecessary. The respondent contended the application of the principles of interpretation was misapplied by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the original judgment on the grounds stated, reaffirming the interpretation of 'unnecessary', 'scandalous', 'frivolous', and 'vexatious' pleadings within the judicial framework.
Issues: The court addressed whether the application of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis principles was appropriate and examined the status of third-party pleadings in legal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that both interpretative principles apply consistently, holding that 'unnecessary' should not be treated independently but in conjunction with the other terms in the rule.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of pleadings under cpc (Para 3) |
| 2. contestation of the application of legal doctrines (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. clarification on noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis principles (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. application of legal interpretation principles (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. validity of pleadings by non-parties (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. conclusion on review petition's basis (Para 22) |
| 7. dismissal of the review petition (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT (Oral)
REVIEW PET. 337/2022 in CM(M) 1189/2022
1. This petition seeks review of judgment dated 9th November 2022, passed by me in CM(M) 1189/2022.
2. Mr. Brijesh Gupta, who is a practicing Counsel and who appears as the petitioner in the present review petition, has restricted his prayer for review of the impugned judgment to two aspects.
3. The first aspect deals with paras 24 and 25 of the judgment under review which read thus:
"24. Clause (a) of Order VI Rule 16 refers to pleadings which are "unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious". The expression "unnecessary", as used in clause (a) of Rule 16, cannot, in my view, be allowed its full etymological play and effect, as, in that event, the provision would empower a court to arrogate, to itself, the authority to decide whether something which is pleaded was "necessary" or not. The prerogative to take a decision on the necessity of the particular plea fundamentally rests with the person pleading it. A court cannot strike out a pleading merely because the court does not consider the fact, or ground, pleaded necessary - as the word is commonly understood - to the case that the party seeks to canvas. That would amount to the court "monitoring" the pleadings of the party, which is neither the intent of, or envisaged by, Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC.
25. The word `unnecessary` as employed in clause (a) of Rule 16, in my considered opinion, is to be read ejusdem generis with the words `scandalous`, `frivolous` and `vexatious`. The words `scandalous=, `frivolous` and `vexatious` constitute a genus, referring to pleadings which are fundamentally abusive of the process of the court and which pertain to the character of misusing the process of the court. The word `unnecessary` which precedes these words is required, therefore, to also pertain to the same genus. Alternatively, applying the noscitur a sociis principle, which requires a word to be interpreted in line with the words whose company it keeps, the word `unnecessary` has to be read analogously to the words `scandalous=, `frivolous` and `vexatious`."
4. Mr. Gupta submits that the application, by this Court, of the noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis principles is incorrect in law, and that the error is apparent on the fact of the record. Apropos the noscitur a sociis doctrine, he submits that this court has erred in interpreting the expression "unnecessary" in the phrase "unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious", as it figures in Order VI Rule 16(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by applying the said doctrine.
5. Mr. Gupta`s contention is that the noscitur a sociis doctrine would have application only where the meaning of the word is doubtful. The etymological meaning of the word "unnecessary", he submits, does not confess to any manner of doubt. The word "unnecessary", submits Mr. Gupta, means "not necessary".
6. As the meaning of the word "unnecessary" is clear, submits Mr. Gupta, to understand the expression as used in the phrase "unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious", there is no scope for applying the noscitur a sociis principle.
7. The argument betrays a fundamental misconception regarding applicability of the noscitur a sociis principle. The principle of noscitur a sociis, as also the principle of ejusdem generis, are intended to be exceptions to the applicability, to an expression as used in a statute, of its normal etymological connotation. The principle of noscitur a sociis stipulates that a word is to be underst
