The Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) while noting a voluminous synopsis running into more than 60 pages where the impugned order of the High Court had only 6 pages, has instructed the parties to avoid such bulky briefs, as it defeats the purpose of a synopsis in its entirety.

Noting the number of pages, a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “Before we part with the matter, we must record here that the 2 plaint runs into 10 pages, the order of the Trial Court runs into 10 pages and the impugned order of the High Court has 6 pages. However, there are more than 60 pages of synopsis and 27 pages of the SLP. Such a bulky synopsis ought to be avoided”.

AOR Manju Jetley appeared for the petitioners before the Court.

In the matter, the SLP challenged an impugned order of the Karnataka High Court. The bench while noting that the trial court has already framed the issue of limitation, agreed with the observations of the High Court.

The High Court had noted that the plaint could not be rejected or the suit cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of issue on limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and on ex-facie reading of the plaint it could not be held that the suit is barred by time.

While dismissing the civil revision petition, a bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani, Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru had observed, “In my considered view, while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is not required to take into consideration neither the defense set up by the defendant in his written statement not the averments made in the application for rejection of the plaint”.

Accordingly, the bench while denying to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. However, the issue of limitation was kept open.

Cause Title: Drakshayanamma & Ors. v. Girish G & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order