While Technology Is Useful In Enhancing Efficacy, Placid Pleadings Will Disorient Cause In A Case: Supreme Court On AI Generated Pleadings
|The Supreme Court emphasised that it is time that the approach to pleadings is re-invented and re-introduced to be brief and precise.
The Supreme Court in its recent Judgment, observed that while technology is useful in enhancing efficiency and efficacy, the placid pleadings will disorient the cause in a case.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed against the Order of the Bombay High Court which confirmed the Judgment of the Appellate Bench.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti remarked, “Long and drawn-out pleadings will run the risk of having a cascading effect on the appellate and revisional courts. Meandering pleadings will land up with laden weight in SLPs, making the narrative difficult. The time has come for courts to invoke the jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 16 and make litigation workable. Courts are also confronted with AI-generated or computer-generated statements. While technology is useful in enhancing efficiency and efficacy, the placid pleadings will disorient the cause in a case.”
The Bench emphasised that it is time that the approach to pleadings is re-invented and re-introduced to be brief and precise.
Senior Advocate B.H. Marlapalle appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate Vinay Navare and Advocate Chinmoy Khaladkar appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
In this case, the Plaintiff claimed to be a deemed tenant/protected licensee of a hotel under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Defendant, who owned the hotel, allowed her brother to run it after her husband's demise, but later entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to manage the business. When the Defendant was served with a notice to vacate, the Plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration and Restraint Order. The Trial Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, but the Appellate Bench and High Court reversed the decision. The Plaintiff, therefore, approached the Apex Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “The averments in the plaint are elaborate; commensurate to the detailed plaint, the written statement is equally elaborate. To wit, the plaint runs into eight pages, and the written statement is sixteen pages long. The resultant consequence is that, in the trial, much oral evidence is brought on record, resulting in a lengthy judgment by the trial court. The judgment of the appellate bench is equally lengthy, even though the core issue for consideration could have been captured in a nutshell by the appellate bench.”
The Court emphasised that a Judgment should be coherent, systematic, and logically organised and should enable the reader to trace the facts to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles.
“Lately, this Court has been experiencing meandering pleadings irrespective of the nature of the dispute. We are reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s ode to a lawyer friend – “[h]e can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met.” Such lengthy pleadings would even upset Polonius from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Every word that is not a help is a hindrance because it distracts. A reader who realizes that a brief is wordy will skim it; one who finds a brief terse and concise will read every word”, it further noted.
The Court said that the parties to a Suit ought not to compel the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and strike out unnecessary or frivolous pleadings.
“The effort of pleading and evidence should be to be concise to the cause and must not confuse the cause. The lengthy pleadings and avoidable evidence are well within the scrutiny of trial courts, and, at the right stage, must be regulated within four corners of the law”, it added.
The Court observed that such an approach by Trial Courts would like a stitch in time, save nine.
The Court, therefore, concluded that in this case, the terms of the agreement are clear that the entrustment to the Plaintiff is the ownership of the hotel business of the Defendant and not the tenancy right of the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal, imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh, and upheld the High Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) through LRs v. Laxmibai Narayan Satose since deceased through LRs & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 466)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate B.H. Marlapalle and AOR Kunal Cheema.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Vinay Navare, AORs Abhinay, Rohan Batra, Advocates Chinmoy Khaladkar, Parul Khurana, Rishabh Bhargava, Harsh Vardhan Arora, Aman Vachher, Dhiraj, Chinmoy Acharya, Ashutosh Dubey, Anshu Vachher, Abhiti Vachher, Akshat Vachher, Nandni Sharma, Amit Kumar, and Jasvinder Choudhary.