' This revision petition is directed against the order passed by Additional District Judge-II, Quetta dated 21st of February, 1988 on an application under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C.
2. Facts in brief are that respondent/plaintiff Mr. Yahya Bukhtiar filed a suit for recovery of Rs,24,900 as damages for defamation in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Quetta. It appears that case was transferred to the file of Additional District Judge-II, Quetta. The petitioner/defendant was directed to file written statement. As a consequence whereof defendant filed a written statement of 42 pages in reply to the plaint. When copy of the same was received by plaintiff, he filed an application under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P. C. On 16-10-1986 praying firstly that written statement was not verified as required by law, and secondly that same being full of unnecessary matters not relevant for fair trial of suit, may be struck off. This application was contested and ultimately learned trial Judge passed impugned order on 21-2-1988 holding that written statement from pages 1 to 38 till the end of para. II was un-necessary and scandalous and that defendant was directed to delete pages 1 to 38 upto end of para. II of written statement.
3. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed this revision petition in this Court under section 115, C.P.C.
4. Heard Khawaja Iqbal Ahmad, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. S.A.M. Quadri, for respondent.
5. Khawaja lqbal Ahmad, Advocate inter alia, submitted that discretion exercised by the Court below was not based on judicial principles. It was contended that striking out of para. II of written statement amounts to depriving petitioner of his defence. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel was that by observing in concluding para. Of order dated 21-2-1988 that page 1 to 38 till the end of para. II of written statement was scandalous, the learned trial Judge has in fact passed a decree against petitioner without getting evidence recorded. It was further contended that matters contained in para. II were necessary and were in no manner scandalous as the same contains judgments of different superior Courts and other relevant material necessary for determination of the issue.
6. Mr. S.A.M. Quadri on the other hand strenuously urged that para. II in fact was unnecessary because it offended law cf pleadings and was in violation of Order VI, Rule 2, C.P.C. It was further canvassed that the Court below had jurisdiction under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. To order striking out or amending any matter in any pleading which is found to be unnecessary and scandalous and which in fact tends to prejudice and embarrass the fair trial of the suit.
7. It may be observed that there are two provisions contained in Order VI, C.P.C. Regarding amendment in the pleadings. Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. Empowers the Court to strike out or order amendment in any pleading which the Court finds to be unnecessary or scandalous or which may tend to prejudice and embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit. Likewise Order VI.Rule 17, C.P.C.
Lays down provisions where either of the parties may request to alter or amend his own pleadings.
In the former case the Court may take legal action ordering striking out of any matter in any pleading suo motu or on an application of a party but in the latter case it is for the parties to make such a request to the Court to allow amendment in their own pleadings, which may be permitted by the Court.
8. Facts of the present case fall within the ambit of Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. As pointed out in the preceding para. An application was moved by present respondent Mr. Yahya Bukhtiar on 16-10- 1986 under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. Inter alia praying for striking out from the statement, matters contained from pages I upto 38 of the written statement the same being unnecessary and scandalous matter.
9. In order to resolve the issue, it becomes necessary to go through the relevant portion of the written statement as contained in para. II.
10. Para. II begins with the following sentence, "before replying to the contents of the plaint seriatim, it is necessary that the relevant facts leading to the publication of the impugned article and germane to the issues arising for determination in this case be stated". After this the petitioner has highlighted proceedings in the case of late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, quoting passages from the judgment of the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Besides this he has also reproduced excerpts from different newspapers, like Morning News, Imroze etc., and has also incorporated portions of interviews from different political leaders or writers of books particularly Mr. Suleman Taseer.
11. From plain reading of this alleged background it becomes abundantly clear that such material might be part of evidence or arguments at the final stage but these are not necessary to be part of written statement.
12. 1 have perused the entire written statement and I find that certain passages have been reproduced twice with comments, etc.
13. In my considered opinion the matters contained in para. II from pages 2 to 38 might be relevant in evidence but not necessary to form part of the written statement. If judgments of the Courts, passages from books etc. Are allowed to be inserted in pleadings then pleadings become so voluminous, bulky and prolix that it may indeed create hardship in the fair trial of the suit.
14. To further elaborate this point, if such sort of material is permitted to be included in the pleadings, then any party may quote in pleadings, relevant observations of any judgment which ultimately he wants to cite in favour of his contention during the arguments and also evidence, thus pleadings might contain arguments, evidence and citations. This indeed tantamounts to offend relevant provisions of C.P.C. Order VI, Rule 2 stipulates that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of all the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved and shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs.
15. The import of the aforesaid rule would be that pleadings must be definite, precise and concise.
The main object of this rule appears to be that parties should be fully aware of the matter. Of course, the parties are allowed under law to raise in concise form all the legal objections and material facts but such, material facts be narrated not in argumentative form or be prolix or unnecessary. In that case under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. The Court is competent to strike out that part of the pleadings which it considers to be unnecessary or scandalous etc. It is now settled that a suit must be filed according to the best mode which exigency of situation demands and requires as held in case of A.N.M. Mehmood v. M.O. Ghani as reported in PLD 1967 Dacca page 67.
16.. In the light of the above observations if we examine the written statement filed by the present petitioner, it becomes abundantly clear that para. II of the petitioner's written statement is argumentative, and otherwise unnecessary because the petitioner has tried to incorporate the defence evidence in the garb of written statement which offends the spirit 'of law of pleadings.
Striking out of the same, therefore, by the Court below was not illegal in substance. However, the trial Court has held the same as scandalous, which in my humble opinion tantamounts to passing of a decree without getting evidence recorded and which the trial Court could not do, as it also contained observations of the superior Courts.
' The upshot of the above discussion therefore, would be that para. II from pages 2 to 38 of the written statement was unnecessary as it formed part of evidence, arguments and citation which the defendant may take if he so wants at the proper stage. However, the same was rightly struck out by the trial Court as unnecessary. The defendant may produce any or all such materials which he thinks fit for his defence in evidence. But for the reasons recorded in the preceding paras. The same cannot be allowed to form part of the written statement and was rightly ordered to be struck out. As the petitioner has already tried to rebut the contents of the plaint in para. 3 onwards in his written statement, hence he is hereby directed to file his amended written statement after deleting para. II of the written statement.
' The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.