Observing that maintainability and clarity of averments in an application are two entirely different concepts, the Delhi High Court has observed that an application which may be unclear or wanting in requisite details, does not suffer from maintainability on that ground alone.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 24th March, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge in a civil suit to the extent that it dismissed an application filed by one of the Defendants under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order VII Rule 11 read with Order I Rule 10 and sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The application was dismissed as the ADJ was of the view that it was a very vague, clandestine and wrongly drafted application on its very face. It was further added that even the title of the application gave an impression that it was filed on behalf of all three defendants whereas, there was no appearance at all of the defendant no. 2.
The High Court observed that it was not permissible for the ADJ to dismiss the petitioner's application in such a fashion.
"It does not appear, from a reading of the application of the petitioner, that it was so vague or unclear that the Court was not in a position to pass any orders thereon. Even if the Court were to feel that the application did not contain requisite averments, as would enable it to be decided on merits, the learned ADJ ought, at the very least, to have made this point explicit while rejecting the application," the Court said.
It added "The impugned order is also inherently contradictory in terms, as it dismisses the application as not maintainable being vague and unclear in averments. Maintainability and clarity of averments in the application are entirely two different concepts. An application which may be unclear or wanting in requisite details, does not suffer from maintainability on that ground alone."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the ADJ to reconsider the application and also to pass appropriate order, keeping in view the observations made.
The Court said "This Court refrains from entering any observations either on the maintainability or the merits of the application. All issues would remain open to be decided by the learned ADJ in accordance with law and in due compliance with the principles of natural justice."
Accordingly, the plea was disposed of.
Case Title: VIJAY SWAROOP LAV v. MS NISHA RATHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 615