Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005534

REVIEW PET. 337/2022 in CM(M) 1189/2022

Page 1 of 7

$~1(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 1189/2022

BRIJESH GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Brijesh Gupta, Adv.

versus

SMT SAROJ GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

%

13.12.2022

REVIEW PET. 337/2022 in CM(M) 1189/2022

1.

This petition seeks review of judgment dated 9^th 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

Digitally Signed

By:KAMLA RAWAT

Signing Date:14.12.2022

16:34:20

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005534

REVIEW PET. 337/2022 in CM(M) 1189/2022

Page 2 of 7

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

Digitally Signed

By:KAMLA RAWAT

Signing Date:14.12.2022

16:34:20

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005534

REVIEW PET. 337/2022 in CM(M) 1189/2022