Order VI Rule 16 CPC: Striking Out Pleadings in Bangladesh (and the Subcontinent)
Scope of Order VI Rule 16 CPC (Bangladesh, India & Pakistan)
Order
VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
empowers a court to strike out or amend any part of a pleading (plaint
or written statement) at any stage of a suit. The rule’s text (identical in
Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan) provides that a court may act suo motu
or on application to strike out any pleading matter – “(a) which is
unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or (b) which may tend to
prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or (c) which is
otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.”[1]
This rule is a safety valve to ensure pleadings remain concise, relevant,
and bona fide[2].
In essence, it allows pruning away of irrelevancies or abusive allegations so
that the trial can focus on genuine disputes.
·
Unnecessary or Irrelevant
Allegations: Facts that have no bearing on the issues
or are purely evidentiary details (instead of material facts) may be struck out[3][4].
Pleadings should contain only material facts required to establish the claim or
defense (per Order VI Rule 2 CPC).
·
Scandalous or Vexatious Matter: Any allegation that is irrelevant and derogatory – inserted
only to harass or defame – qualifies as scandalous[5].
Vexatious pleadings (meant to annoy or oppress the other side with no
legitimate purpose) can likewise be removed[4].
For example, in a divorce case a wife successfully applied to delete lurid
adultery accusations from the petition that were not even necessary for the
relief claimed, as they were scandalous, vexatious and prejudicial to
her[6][7].
·
Prejudicial or Embarrassing
Averments: Statements so vague or confusing that they embarrass
the opponent in formulating a defense, or content that would prejudice a
fair trial (e.g. inflammatory matter apt to bias the judge/jury) may be struck
out[8][9].
Likewise, needless detail that would delay the trial by spawning
side-issues can be removed[10].
The Calcutta High Court has cautioned that unless passages clearly meet these
criteria (unnecessary, frivolous, causing prejudice etc.), striking out is
not justified[11].
·
Abuse of the Court’s Process: This is a broad residuary ground. Any pleading part that perverts
the judicial process or is a misuse of legal procedure falls here[12][13].
Repeatedly filing hopeless suits to harass, including averments made for an
ulterior motive (not to genuinely advance the case), are examples. Courts have
struck out defenses of litigants who willfully disobey court orders as an abuse
of process – for instance, a tenant’s entire defense was struck off
under Rule 16 when she persistently refused to pay arrears despite court
directives[14][15].
Application,
Timing, and Procedure under Rule 16
Order VI
Rule 16 is a discretionary, but potent power. It can be invoked “at
any stage of the proceedings”[2][16].
Courts encourage that objections to pleadings be raised early – to streamline
the trial by pruning out irrelevancies before evidence is recorded[17].
The rule may even be applied summarily before a written statement is filed,
if the plaint’s defects are apparent. In other words, a defendant need not
file a written statement before seeking striking out of parts of the
plaint; the court can act on a meaningful reading of the plaint alone[18].
The Delhi High Court, for example, noted that Order VI Rule 16
empowers courts to strike out offending matter “at any stage of the
proceedings… even before the filing of the written statement”[18].
This parallels the practice under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (rejection of
plaint), which also can be applied for in limine without a written
statement[19][20].
Indeed, both provisions address threshold issues – Rule 11 targeting
entire plaints with fundamental defects, and Rule 16 targeting specific
defective averments[21][22].
Procedure: A party may move an application
(supported by an affidavit) detailing the exact passages to be struck and the
grounds (e.g. “paragraph 8 contains irrelevant scandalous statements
about the defendant’s character…”). The court may also act suo motu
if it notices egregiously improper pleading material[23].
Typically, the court will give the pleader an opportunity to justify the
relevance of the challenged portions. In many cases, rather than immediately
striking out, courts give a chance to amend the pleading to remove the
objectionable matter[24].
This aligns with the general liberal approach to allow correction of pleadings
if it serves justice (see Order VI Rule 17 on amendments). Notably,
courts in the subcontinent have held that Rule 16 and Rule 17
should be interpreted liberally to ensure the “real controversy” is brought out
and decided on merits[25].
Striking out is thus used sparingly, as a last resort when the pleading
defect cannot be cured except by removal. The power, though broad, must be
exercised with caution and fairness[16] –
a wrongly struck pleading could drive a party out of court unjustly.
No Adjudication of
Disputed Facts at the Pleading Stage
Importantly,
an Order VI Rule 16 application is not a mini-trial. The court does not resolve whether the allegations are true or
false; it only assesses whether they should remain on record at all. If an
averment, however doubtful, relates to a material factual issue in dispute,
it should be tested by evidence in trial, not summarily struck out. In
Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan alike, judges have underscored that seriously
disputed questions of fact cannot be decided on an application under
Rule 16 (or Rule 11) – the court must assume the pleading’s
statements are true for the purpose of the application[26].
The Calcutta High Court put it succinctly: unless the impugned paragraphs clearly
have “no bearing on the controversy or are abusive in nature,” the proper
course is to allow the matter to proceed to trial rather than stifle it
at the pleading stage[11].
This principle is illustrated by cases where defendants attempted to
strike out portions of a plaint on the ground that the facts were “false.”
Courts have refused, noting that “disputed facts should not be decided
without evidence” – if the plaintiff’s claims are factually meritless, that
should be exposed through cross-examination and documents, not by striking out
the pleadings prematurely. For example, the Madras High Court held that an
application to reject a plaint or strike out pleadings must be decided only on
the face of the plaint (and any undisputed documents); “any disputed
questions cannot be decided at the time of considering the application”
under these rules[26].
In other words, the court looks only at the pleadings themselves and
assumes they are honestly made: if under that lens a pleading part is redundant
or abusive, it goes – but if it raises a triable issue, it stays even if
the opponent insists it is false.
Conversely, where it is obvious that a pleading (or a part of it) is
devoid of any merit, courts will act to strike or reject it without putting
everyone through a pointless trial. As the Indian
Supreme Court observed in the context of frivolous suits, if on a meaningful
(not formalistic) reading a claim is “manifestly vexatious and meritless, in
the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue,” the court should nip
it in the bud at the first hearing[27].
Thus, there is a balance: clear-cut cases of abuse are ended swiftly (even summarily),
but bona fide factual controversies are preserved for trial. In sum,
Order VI Rule 16 is a filter to remove only the dead wood from
pleadings – it cannot be used to chop down the live tree of a genuine dispute.
Effect of Not
Filing Written Statement: Can a Defendant Still Apply under Rule 16?
Yes
– a defendant who has not filed a written statement is not barred from
invoking Order VI Rule 16. By the rule’s plain terms, the court
may act “at any stage” on the pleadings[1].
In fact, it is common for a defendant to raise threshold objections via
Rule 16 or Rule 11 before filing any written statement (since
filing a written statement would otherwise entail responding to possibly
improper averments). The High Courts have recognized that a preliminary
objection can be taken even before filing a defense – for instance, to point
out that the plaint discloses no cause of action or contains scandalous matter[19][20].
If such an objection succeeds, it obviates the need for the defendant to file
any written statement at all[28].
This approach has been explicitly approved: “Order 6 Rule 16…empowers
the Court to strike out pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. It may even
be before the filing of the written statement by the defendant.”[18].
In practice, a defendant who has entered appearance but not filed a
written statement can move a Rule 16 application to strike out parts of
the plaint (or even the whole plaint, though the latter is technically done via
Order VII Rule 11). There is no procedural pre-condition that
a written statement must be on file. For example, in an Indian election
petition case, the respondent (instead of filing a written statement) applied
to strike out certain pleadings as not disclosing material facts, and the court
entertained it under Order VI Rule 16[18].
Similarly in Bangladesh, a defendant in default of filing a timely written
statement may still be heard on a point of law or on an application to reject
or strike the plaint (though the opportunity to later file a written statement
is subject to the court’s discretion).
That said, a defendant cannot use Rule 16 to delay proceedings
unfairly. Courts will frown upon a situation where a defendant neither
files a defense nor proceeds with the main case, but instead keeps filing
applications to strike out bits of the plaint. The application should be made
in good faith and at the earliest. If the defendant’s Rule 16 application
is rejected and no written statement was ever filed, the court may proceed ex
parte or treat the defendant as having no defense on facts, since by then
the opportunity to file pleadings has passed. In short, non-filing of a
written statement does not preclude a Rule 16 application, but the
defendant must be mindful of the consequences if the application fails.
(Notably, in a Bangladesh case, a plaintiff invoked Rule 16 to strike out an inconsistent second written statement filed by
the defendant after initially admitting a crucial fact. The courts held that
the defendant should have sought amendment of the original statement rather
than introducing an entirely contradictory pleading; while the trial court
allowed the substitution of the new statement, the plaintiff’s challenge
reached the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division cautioned that filing a
completely new written statement with an opposite stance – without court’s
leave – was improper[29][30].
This illustrates that Rule 16 can also guard against abuse by defendants
in pleading stage – though the usual remedy for inconsistent pleadings is to
disallow the new pleading or treat prior admissions as binding.)
Revision against an
Order under Order VI Rule 16
An
order either allowing or rejecting a Rule 16 application is an
interlocutory order. In Bangladesh, such an order is not directly appealable
(no provision in Order 43 for appeal), but the aggrieved party may seek
revision under Section 115 CPC if the order results in a “case decided” or
if there is a jurisdictional error or injustice. The revisional court’s role is
limited – it does not rehear facts, but checks for material irregularity
or illegality in the subordinate court’s decision[31].
Generally, if a trial court has exercised its discretion properly under
Rule 16, the High Court will not interfere in revision. However, if the
trial court failed to apply the correct legal test or refused to strike
out pleadings that clearly warranted removal (or conversely struck out
something vital without basis), revision is available to correct the error
and prevent prejudice.
For instance, where a trial court erroneously refused to delete scandalous
and irrelevant allegations, the High Court (in revision) has stepped in to
order those portions struck off the record[6][7].
In one Delhi case, a husband’s divorce petition contained accusations of
adultery against his wife even though adultery was not a ground of the
petition; the trial court had declined to expunge them, but on revision the
High Court allowed the Rule 16 application, directing that the
offensive paragraphs be deleted as they served no purpose except to
embarrass the wife[32][7].
This demonstrates that a revisional court can intervene to ensure the pleading
rules are properly enforced and no party is unfairly prejudiced by
irrelevant or scandalous averments. Conversely, if a trial court strikes out
portions of a pleading and the affected party believes this was improper (e.g.
an arguable claim was shut out), they too can seek revision. The High Court
would then examine if the struck material indeed had no bearing on the case or
whether the order was made in error. If in the court’s view the pleading was
struck out perversely (say, a triable issue was characterized as
unnecessary), the revisional court can set aside that order so that the issue
remains in play.
It should be noted that revisional interference is used judiciously.
The revisional judge will ask: Did the trial court correctly identify the
nature of the pleading and apply Rule 16’s grounds? Was there a gross
irregularity or miscarriage of justice in either striking or
refusing to strike? For example, if a trial court dismisses a Rule 16
application by erroneously insisting it cannot act until evidence is led, that
is a legal error (since Rule 16 is meant for decision without
evidence on pure pleading principles) – a revision court could correct that.
Similarly, if a trial judge strikes out a defense on tenuous grounds
(effectively shutting down a party’s case), the High Court could reverse it in
revision to allow a fair trial. In all three countries, higher courts have
emphasized that striking out pleadings is an exceptional step and should
be upheld on revision only when clearly justified[11].
Summary: The revisional court may interfere
with a Rule 16 order to ensure that the power to strike pleadings is
exercised in accordance with law – neither abused to short-circuit legitimate
claims, nor ignored when truly abusive pleadings need weeding out. Each
situation is fact-specific, but the touchstone is preventing injustice.
If the trial court’s refusal to strike will cause a party undue prejudice
(having to answer scurrilous or baseless allegations) or its decision to strike
has wrongly stifled a claim/defense, the High Court can and does step in under
Section 115. Notably, in Bangladesh the availability of revision (since no
direct appeal lies) serves as a crucial check to ensure Order VI
Rule 16 is applied consistently with its intended purpose – to
foster a fair, focused trial free from sideshows.
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
Order VI
Rule 16 CPC is a procedural tool designed to
maintain the integrity of pleadings in civil suits. In Bangladesh, as in India
and Pakistan, the courts view this rule as a means to strike a balance:
frivolous or abusive matters are summarily removed “to secure the ends of
justice,” but bona fide contentions – especially those involving factual
determinations – are left for trial. The rule is applicable at any stage,
even ex ante, and can be invoked by any party or the court itself. However,
it is not a shortcut to adjudicate merits. Any attempt to use
Rule 16 to determine “who is right” on a factual issue will be rebuffed;
the rule only asks “does this allegation belong in the pleadings at all?” If
the answer is no (because it is irrelevant, scandalous, etc.), then –
and only then – will it be struck out without evidence. If there is any
doubt, the allegation stays and must be proven or disproven in the normal
course of trial.
From a strategic standpoint in a civil suit: - A plaintiff should
draft the plaint carefully to avoid giving the defendant grounds for a
Rule 16 attack (omit unneeded accusations or slurs that don’t advance the
cause of action). Minor defects in form won’t usually invite striking out, but
major irrelevancies or scandalous averments might.
- A defendant should file a Rule 16 application promptly if the
plaint contains clearly objectionable matter (or consider an Order VII
Rule 11 application if the whole plaint is fundamentally flawed). This can
narrow the case early. Not filing a written statement is no bar to such
preliminary objections[18] – indeed raising
them early is preferable. But if the issues are debatable or factual, the
defendant should focus on the written statement and evidence instead; a
baseless Rule 16 application could only delay matters and irritate the
court.
- The courts will use Rule 16 sparingly but firmly –
sparingly, in that they will lean in favor of preserving pleadings that have
even a prima facie relevance; firmly, in that truly abusive pleadings will not
be tolerated. As one jurist quipped, the provision “promotes brevity, clarity,
and fairness in the adversarial process”[33] by keeping
litigation on the rails of genuine controversy. In the end, the guiding
philosophy across Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan is the same: justice is
best served when pleadings are kept to what is necessary and material.
Order VI Rule 16 is the judicial scalpel to cut out the rest – but
only when the diagnosis is clear and the operation is warranted.
Sources:
·
Code of Civil Procedure 1908,
Order VI Rule 16 (text and commentary)[1][11]
·
Lawgratis Legal Blog – “Order 6
Rule 16 CPC” (July 2025) – overview of Rule 16 grounds and nature[2][16]
·
Rekha Singal v. Lavleen Singal, Delhi High Court (2002) – deletion of scandalous allegations in a
pleadings (revision allowed)[6][7]
·
Tej Bahadur v. Narendra Modi, (2021) AIR SC 217 – Supreme Court of India citing T. Arivandandam
on striking out meritless plaints at the earliest[27]
·
Law Web article – on timing of Order VII Rule 11 and Order VI
Rule 16 objections (no bar to raising before written statement)[19][18]
·
Abdul Wadud Khan v.
Anwaruzzaman, 54 DLR (AD) (Bangladesh) – Appellate
Division on inconsistent written statements and use of Rule 16[29][30] (illustrative)
·
Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. (MHCO) newsletter – Venugopal Krishnamurthy v. Tejaswini
(Karnataka High Court, 2025) – striking out defense for abuse of process
(non-payment of rent)[15]
·
Pakarbiter Law Guide – “Pleadings
under CPC” (2021) – confirming similar principles in Pakistan (liberal
amendment vs striking out)[25][34].
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [8] [9] [10] [12] [13] [16] [17] [21] [22] [23] [24] [33] Law Gratis
http://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/order-6-rule-16-cpc
[6] [7] [32] Rekha Singal. v. Lavleen Singal.
| Delhi High Court | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090b41e4b01497111743b4
[11] Christopher Housing Developers
Pvt. Ltd. v. Manjit Poddar | Calcutta High Court | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e4c54a93261aa79528a1
[14] [15] Mansukhlal Hiralal And Co. | MHCO
Updates
https://www.mhcolaw.com/updates/litigation-update-strike-off-of-defence-on-non-payment-of-rent/196
[18] [19] [20] [28] Law Web: Whether plaint can be
rejected if it does not disclose cause of action?
https://www.lawweb.in/2013/12/plaint-can-be-rejected-if-it-does-not.html
[25] 2018
https://pljlawsite.com/html/2018art7.htm
[26] M.A.M.R. Muthiah v. Chettinad
Charitable Trust | Madras High Court | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6153f19a9fca195d18199dab
[27] Court Interference in Election
Process of Societies and Clubs – Saji Koduvath Associates
https://indianlawlive.net/2021/03/23/court-interference-in-election-process/
[29] [30] Abdul Wadud Khan Vs. Anwaruzzaman
and another | The Lawyers & Jurists
https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/article/abdul-wadud-khan-vs-anwaruzzaman-and-another/
[31] Difference Between Review and
Revision - Law Gratis
https://lawgratis.com/blog-detail/difference-between-review-and-revision
[34] PLEADINGS - Pakarbiter
মন্তব্যসমূহ
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন