Anil Khanna vs Geeta Khanna & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 3869 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                I.A. No. 6659/2012 in CS(OS) 2074/2011
%                                                Reserved on: 7th August, 2013
                                                 Decided on: 2nd September, 2013
ANIL KHANNA                                                    ..... Plaintiff
                                   Through:   Mr. Arun Khosla and Ms. Shreeanka
                                              Kakkar, Advocates.
                                   versus

GEETA KHANNA & ORS                                             ..... Defendants
                 Through:                     Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for
                                              Defendant Nos. 1& 3.
                                              Mr. R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for
                                              Defendant No. 2
                                              Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate for
                                              Defendant No. 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

I.A. No. 6659/2012 (by Defendant Nos. 1 & 3 u/Order VI Rule 16 r/w
Section 151 CPC)


1.

By this application the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 seek striking out the

defamatory and irrelevant pleadings from the plaint.

2. Learned counsel for Plaintiff submits that the prayer of the Plaintiff in

the suit is for declaration of Agreement to Sell dated 22nd September, 2010

executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of Defendant No. 4 in respect of

the First Floor of the property bearing No. D-837, New Friends Colony, New

Delhi-110065, as null and void ab-initio and therefore vests no right, title or

interest in the Defendant No. 4; grant of mandatory and permanent

injunction directing defendant No.4 or her representatives, assignees or

successors from alienating or parting with possession of the suit property

during the pendency of suit and to hand over peaceful vacant possession of

the suit property to the plaintiff in the event the alleged lessee Mr. Ranjeet

Kukreja surrender possession thereof and awarding of costs of the suit to the

plaintiff. Thus the averments with regard to the alleged relations between

Defendant No. 1 and her husband are irrelevant and not necessary for the

adjudication of the suit besides being false and baseless.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 submits that

in the plaint the Plaintiff who is the brother-in-law of Defendant No. 1 and

uncle of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, has made defamatory and malicious

averments with regard to the matrimonial relations between his deceased

brother Shri Ajay Khanna and Defendant No. 1, the wife of late Shri Ajay

Khanna. He has also casted aspersions on the paternity of Defendant Nos. 2

and 3. The averments made in the plaint have not relevant to the issue

involved in the suit. Reliance is placed on Sathi Vijay Kumar, 2006 (13) SCC

353; Manjit K. Singh vs. S. Kanwarjit Singh, 58 (1995) DLT 208 and Mrs.

Rekha Singal vs. Lavleen Singal, 96 (2002) DLT 289.

4. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff/non-applicant on the other hand

contends that the averments which are sought to be deleted are based on the

Will of his late brother/ husband of Defendant No. 1 and thus cannot be said

to be scandalous, malicious, false, fabricated or irrelevant so as to direct

expunging the same from the pleadings.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. As mentioned above the present suit is for declaration, permanent and

mandatory injunction and for possession of the suit property. Defendant No.

1, 2 and 3 are the wife and children of deceased brother of the Plaintiff. The

case of the Plaintiff in the suit is that the father of the Plaintiff and father- in-

law of Defendant No. 1 died on 8th June, 1997 leaving behind the Will dated

6th March, 1997 bequeathing therein all his movable and immovable assets to

the Plaintiff and his late brother Shri Ajay Khanna, who also unfortunately

died prematurely on 31st January, 2000.

7. Order VI Rule 16 CPC reads as under:-

"16. Striking out pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading--

(a) which may be 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."

8. Thus this provision clearly empowers the Court to strike out any

pleading if it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tends to

prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or is otherwise an abuse

of the process of Court. The underlying object of the Rule is to ensure that

every party to a suit presents his pleading in an intelligible form without

causing embarrassment to his adversary. In Sathi Vijay Kumar (supra) the

Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Order VI Rule

16 held:

"27. The above provision empowers a Court to strike out any pleading if it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the suit or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. The underlying object of the rule is to ensure that every party to a suit should present his pleading in an intelligible form without causing embarrassment to his adversary [vide Davy v. Garrett).

28. Bare reading of Rule 16 of Order 6 makes it clear that the Court may order striking off pleadings in the following circumstances;

(a) Where such pleading is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) Where such pleading tends to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the suit; or

(c) Where such pleading is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

29. ...

30. ...

31. ...

32. ...

33. At the same time, however, it cannot be overlooked that normally a Court cannot direct parties as to how they should prepare their pleadings. If the parties have not offended the rules of pleadings by making averments or raising arguable issues, the Court would not order striking out pleadings. The power to strike out pleadings is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised by the Court sparingly and with extreme care, caution and circumspection [vide Roop Lal v. Nachhatar Singh Gill, K.K. v. K.N. Modi ; United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar)

34. More than a century back, in Knowles v. Roberts Bowen, L.J. said:

"It seems to me that the rule that the Court is not to dictate to parties how they should frame their case, is one that ought always to be preserved sacred. But that rule is, of course, subject to this modification and limitation, that the parties must not offend against the rules of pleading which have been laid down by the law; and if a party introduces a pleading which is unnecessary, and it tends to prejudice, embarrass and delay the trial of the action, it then becomes a pleading which is beyond his right. It is a recognized principle that a defendant may claim ex debito justitiae to have the plaintiff's claim presented in an intelligible form, so that he may not be embarrassed in meeting it; and the Court ought to be strict even to severity in taking care to prevent pleadings from

degenerating into the old oppressive pleadings of the Court of Chancery."

9. The only ground on which the Plaintiff supports the pleadings is that

these facts are so stated in the Will of his deceased brother. However, in the

present case the averments in the plaint though stated to be part of Will of

Shri Ajay Khanna, relied upon by the Plaintiff, are neither relevant nor

necessary for determination of the real issue between the parties besides

being scandalous, mischievous and objectionable. Permitting such

allegations to be retained on the record would not only embarrass the fair

trial of the proceeding but would also amount to permitting scandalous facts

in the pleadings indirectly which cannot be permitted to be done directly.

In view thereof the portions of Paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 12, 14, 19 and 20 of the

plaint as detailed in Para-4 of I.A. No. 6659/2012 are directed to be struck

out.

Application is disposed of. Amended plaint be filed expunging these

paragraphs within four week.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 02, 2013 'vn'