Question

In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a court, while examining pleadings, finds certain averments to be unnecessary and capable of prejudicing or delaying the fair trial, the court, in such a case, may:

• A. Direct amendment only after trial begins.
• B. Reject the plaint in entirety.
• C. Strike out such pleadings at any stage of proceedings.
• D. Ignore such pleadings without passing any order.

Hint:

Order VI Rule 16 is the "clean-up" tool for pleadings. If a party litters the record with irrelevant or delay-causing nonsense, the Court has the power to simply strike it out at any point!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC can be tested in two parts: what kind of pleading it targets, and when the court can act on it.

Test 1, substance:
The rule applies to pleadings that are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or likely to prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial. The facts given, unnecessary averments that could prejudice or delay trial, fit this description exactly.

Test 2, timing:
The rule lets the court exercise this power at any stage of the proceedings, with no cut-off tied to when the trial starts.

Running the options through both tests:
Rejecting the plaint outright fails Test 1, since that remedy addresses defects in the plaint as a whole under a different provision. Ignoring the pleadings without an order fails because the rule requires an affirmative act of striking out. Restricting amendment to only after trial begins fails Test 2, since the power is not time-locked that way. Only striking out the pleadings, available at any stage, clears both tests.

\[ \boxed{\text{Strike out such pleadings at any stage of proceedings.}} \]

Answer 2

Order VI Rule 16 exists so a civil suit stays focused on the real dispute and is not weighed down by irrelevant or unfair material in the pleadings. Judging each option by whether it serves that housekeeping purpose shows which one the rule actually supports.

1. Direct amendment only after trial begins: Waiting until trial has begun before allowing any correction would let unnecessary or prejudicial material sit on record through the early stages of the case, defeating the very purpose of keeping pleadings clean from the outset.
2. Reject the plaint in entirety: Throwing out the whole plaint over a few problematic averments is disproportionate and would punish the plaintiff's entire case for a defect that only affects part of the pleading, which is not what a housekeeping power like Rule 16 is meant to achieve.
3. Strike out such pleadings at any stage of proceedings: Removing only the offending averments, whenever they are noticed, precisely serves the purpose of keeping the pleadings relevant and fair without disturbing the rest of the case.
4. Ignore such pleadings without passing any order: Leaving prejudicial material on the file without any order does nothing to protect the fairness of the trial, since the material remains available to be argued or relied upon later.

Only striking out the objectionable pleadings, at whatever stage the problem is discovered, actually fulfils the purpose behind Order VI Rule 16.

Therefore, the correct answer is Strike out such pleadings at any stage of proceedings.