PLEADING AND EVIDENCE SHOULD BE CONCISE TO THE CAUSE AND MUST NOT CONFUSE THE CAUSE

With the growing trend of use of AI in the professional world, it is just a matter of time that such AI tools would be incorporated by legal professionals for drafting the matters to be filed before a Court of law. One such incident was highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself, in the matter of Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs Laxmibai Narayan Satose since deceased through Legal Representatives (Civil Appeal No.84 of 2019) (Date of Judgement 08.04.2025), wherein a bench of the Hon’ble Court comprising of Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti expressed their dissatisfaction over the pleadings being unnecessarily long and lengthy at the civil trial stage itself, which led to the Courts below to pass lengthy judgments, which could have easily been brief in nature.

Furthermore, the Court also objected to the use of Artificial Intelligence, whereby it observed that the Courts are also confronted with AI-generated or machine generated pleadings. The Court itself took the front foot in the said matter and pointed towards the necessity of Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the said legislation empowers the Judge to strike out or amend any pleading, wherever it is unnecessary on the face of it. The said provision can also be used by the Courts wherein the pleadings before the Court appears to be frivolous, vexatious, or deems to be an abuse of the procedure established by law.

With the aim to get the pleadings to be concise and to be catering to the point of law and the issue involved therein, the Court made the following observation that they have  been experiencing unnecessary pleadings irrespective of the nature of the dispute. Every word which is not useful actually acts like a hindrance. The Court also observed that the pleadings and evidence must be in a brief and concise form. It should be to explain the  cause and should not confuse the cause. The Court has the power to strike down any unnecessary and long evidence which is not relevant. The Courts would hence benefit if the pleadings in the matter is short and to the point. As long pleadings take a toll on the Courts both at the trial and the appellate level, it also adds to the time for rendering justice in a matter at hand. By unnecessary pleadings, only the size of the files would laden the weight in SLPs, making the justice system even more burdened than it has to. Courts too are confronted with AI generated pleadings and thus are constrained to use their power under Order VI Rule 16 to strike out lengthy and unnecessary pleading to make the litigation smooth. AI tech is helpful but must not be used to cause unnecessary delays in the judicial system. It is time that we should work towards making the matters as brief as possible for the benefit of the legal system.

To conclude the issue, the Court observed that the lower Courts have a duty in striking away the pleadings which appear to be unnecessary as the pleadings which are concise aids the Court to deliver a “stitch in time” judgment, thereby reducing the backlogs and pendency upon the judicial system.

SARTHAK KALRA

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer and Allied Services

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled Franchise Business Legal Tips can be viewed at the link below:

https://youtu.be/yYY9FXEknwM?si=-3SkQU_V9rAwuOV1