1. Introduction
The integrity of pleadings is essential to the fair and efficient administration of civil justice. However, pleadings may sometimes contain unnecessary, scandalous, or defective material, or require modification to clarify the real issues in dispute. The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) empowers courts under Order VI, Rules 16 and 17 to strike out improper pleadings and to permit amendments when justice so demands. These provisions ensure that civil proceedings remain focused, fair, and free from procedural clutter.
2. Order VI, Rule 16 – Striking Out of Pleadings
Rule 16 authorizes the court to strike out any matter in a pleading which:
- May be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious; or
- Tends to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the suit; or
- Is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
This rule empowers courts to maintain discipline in pleadings and prevent misuse of judicial process through irrelevant or inflammatory assertions.
3. Grounds for Striking Out
The court may strike out a pleading wholly or partially on the following grounds:
- Unnecessary or Scandalous Matter: Allegations that are defamatory, irrelevant, or serve no legitimate purpose.
- Frivolous or Vexatious Content: Pleadings intended only to harass or delay the opposing party.
- Prejudicial to Fair Trial: Matter that may confuse or mislead the court or opponent, impeding a fair hearing.
- Abuse of Process: Attempts to misuse legal procedure for ulterior motives, such as repetitive claims or dishonest pleadings.
The power must be exercised sparingly, only when the defect is apparent on the face of the record and not when it involves disputed questions of fact.
4. Judicial Interpretation – Striking Out
- In K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998 3 SCC 573), the Supreme Court held that pleadings amounting to an abuse of court process or containing scandalous allegations may be struck out to preserve judicial dignity.
- In Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill (1982 3 SCC 487), it was observed that Rule 16 aims to prevent pleadings that are irrelevant or tend to embarrass the fair trial of issues.
- In Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998 2 SCC 493), the Court emphasized that this power should be used judiciously and not to stifle legitimate claims or defences.
5. Order VI, Rule 17 – Amendment of Pleadings
Rule 17 allows the court to permit a party to amend its pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, on such terms as may be just, if the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. This provision balances procedural flexibility with judicial efficiency.
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.”
6. Object of Amendment of Pleadings
The object of Rule 17 is to enable the court to determine the real issues between the parties and to prevent failure of justice due to technical defects. The rule recognizes that pleadings are not immutable and may require modification to reflect changing facts or clarify ambiguities.
- To avoid multiplicity of suits by allowing new issues to be introduced in the same proceeding.
- To correct defects, errors, or omissions in pleadings.
- To enable effective adjudication on the merits of the dispute.
7. Limitations on Amendment
The 2002 Amendment to the CPC introduced a proviso to Rule 17, restricting amendments sought after the commencement of trial. Post-trial amendments may be permitted only if the party satisfies the court that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.
- Amendments introducing a new or inconsistent cause of action are not allowed.
- Amendments that prejudice the opposite party or alter the nature of the suit are generally refused.
- Courts consider delay, bona fides, and necessity for resolving the real issue.
8. Judicial Interpretation – Amendment of Pleadings
- In Kailash v. Nanhku (2005 4 SCC 480), the Supreme Court held that procedural rules should be liberally interpreted to serve the ends of justice and not defeat substantive rights.
- In Revajeetu Builders v. Narayanaswamy (2009 10 SCC 84), the Court laid down guiding factors for allowing amendments: (a) Whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy; (b) Whether it introduces a new cause of action; (c) Whether it causes prejudice or delay; (d) Whether it is mala fide.
- In Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi & Co. (2008 14 SCC 364), it was clarified that courts must weigh justice to both sides — amendments should not convert litigation into a moving target or endless trial.
9. Difference Between Striking Out and Amendment
| Basis | Striking Out (Rule 16) | Amendment (Rule 17) |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | To remove objectionable or irrelevant matter from pleadings. | To modify or add relevant material to clarify issues. |
| Nature | Restrictive — prevents misuse or abuse of process. | Permissive — promotes full and fair adjudication. |
| Effect | Deletes offending portions or entire pleadings. | Alters or supplements pleadings without replacing them. |
| Timing | Can be invoked at any stage if defect appears on record. | Allowed at any stage, subject to diligence and necessity. |
| Judicial Discretion | Exercised narrowly and sparingly. | Exercised liberally to advance justice. |
10. Importance of Judicial Control over Pleadings
Together, Rules 16 and 17 preserve the balance between procedural discipline and flexibility. Striking out ensures that pleadings remain relevant and decorous, while amendment ensures that procedural rigidity does not obstruct substantive justice. Both are discretionary powers that must be used judicially, not mechanically.
11. Conclusion
The twin powers of striking out and amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rules 16 and 17 CPC embody the court’s responsibility to maintain procedural fairness and efficiency. While striking out prevents abuse and protects the dignity of judicial proceedings, amendment promotes substantive justice by enabling correction of errors or inclusion of overlooked facts. The courts must, however, ensure that these powers are exercised with restraint and guided by the overarching goal of securing a fair and final determination of disputes on their merits.