Delhi High Court
Mohit Gupta & Anr vs Rajiv Khosla & Ors on 12 April, 2018
$~8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 12th April, 2018
+ CM(M) 222/2017 and CM 7472/2017
MOHIT GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Abhijat, Mr. Sumant De and
Mr. Shaashwat Jindal, Advocates
Versus
RAJIV KHOSLA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Tajinder Singh, Adv. for R-1
with Respondent no.1 in person
Respondent no.4 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petition seeks to assail the order dated 22.12.2016 passed
by the Additional District Judge on the file of the civil suit (CS
no.736/2016) which was instituted on the date of the said order by the
first to fourth respondents (collectively, the plaintiffs) impleading,
amongst others, the petitioners as the defendants. The case relates to
grievances of the plaintiffs vis-à-vis the election held for the various
posts in the Executive Committee of Delhi High Court Bar
Association (DHCBA) i.e. the fifth respondent on 18.11.2016. The
plaintiffs seek declaration that the said election and the results
announced in its wake are null and void. The plaint also makes a
prayer for mandatory injunction, inter alia, for holding fresh elections
in a fair, free and transparent manner.
2. When the suit came up before the court of the Additional
District Judge, he noted some portions of pleadings in para 39 (the
cause of action clause) making a reference to certain orders passed by
this court on the judicial side on 19.09.2016, 30.09.2016 and
03.10.2016. The Additional District Judge was of the view that it was
not open for the plaintiffs to "draw cause of action from a judicial
order" and further that if there were any grievances vis-à-vis such
judicial orders, the remedy of appeal or review as may be available
under the law will have to be exercised. The plaintiffs, at that stage,
submitted before the Additional District Judge that the portion making
a reference to such judicial orders in para 39 of the plaint as had been
presented may be treated as "taken off the record". The Additional
District Judge allowed the said prayer and accordingly made
endorsement on the plaint and thereafter issued summons in the suit
and notice on the application filed therewith.
3. The petitioners contend that the procedure adopted by the Trial
Judge for striking off the part of the pleadings in the manner indicated
above was impermissible. Though initially the counsel arguing on
behalf of the petitioners made reference to the law in the context of the
provision contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the subject matter of amendment of the
pleadings, upon his attention being drawn to the provision contained
in Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC, he argued that the impugned order
cannot be upheld even in light of said provision of law there being, in
his submission, no express finding that the portion of the pleadings
which has been struck off was either unnecessary or scandalous or
frivolous or vexatious or prejudicial to fair trial of the suit or
embarrassing or it to be cause of delay or, further, be in the nature of
"abuse of the process of the court". He places reliance on the rulings
in D. Ramachandran Vs. R.V. Janakiraman and Ors., (1999) 3 SCC
267 and MTNL Vs. V.K. Jain, 1998 (44) DRJ.
4. This court has given considered thoughts to the submission
made on behalf of the petitioners but finds no reason why the
impugned order should not be upheld. Unlike the cases cited at bar,
the irrelevance and impermissibility of reference to the judicial orders
in the cause of action clause of the plaint, as presented, was pointed
out to the plaintiffs by the Additional District Judge himself. It is
inherent in the impugned order that the court was finding such part of
the pleadings to be unnecessary and frivolous. The plaintiffs did not
resist and immediately agreed to make suitable amends by suggesting
the concerned portion to be "taken off the record". This order, it is
clear, is in the nature of striking out the pleadings within the meaning
of Rule 16 of Order VI CPC. It is clear from a bare perusal of the said
provision of law, that it is not necessary for the power to strike out the
pleadings to be invoked, that an application should first be moved.
The order to strike out the pleadings which are unnecessary or
frivolous may be passed by the court on its own initiative.
5. The petition, thus, is found devoid of merit and is dismissed.
The pending application also stands dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 12, 2018/yg
