Sumithran, Kumari Mini, Renuka Devi v. Neelakantan (OP(C) No. 2193 of 2015)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: Original Petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order was affirmed, and the court held that Rule 16 cannot be used to strike valid pleadings absent the enumerated grounds; the 50-cent tenancy claim fell outside that scope and did not justify striking down the pleadings.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sumithran
Kumari Mini
Renuka Devi

Respondents

Neelakantan S/o Kesava Panicker

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• G. P. Shinod
• Govind Padmanaabhan
• Ajit G. Anjarlekar

Counsels for Respondents

• K. P. Sreekumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order in I.A.3633/2014 in O.S. No. 788/1993 of the Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. The petitioners, plaintiffs in the suit, contend that the 27th defendant raised a plea of tenancy over 50 cents of the plaint schedule property, claiming rights under a 1997 settlement and ongoing possession. They seek to strike down this pleading under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC, arguing that the court below erred by not striking the pleadings; they rely on the Land Tribunal OA 506/89 order and prior findings to assert common title among the parties. The court below rejected the strike-out attempt. The High Court, after examining Rule 16 and leading Supreme Court precedents Bhikaji Kesho Joshi and Roop Lal Sathi, held that Rule 16 may be used only to strike pleadings that are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or prejudicial or otherwise an abuse of process. It found that the 27th defendant’s tenancy plea, limited to 50 cents of a 10-acre plaint schedule, could not be deemed within the ambit of Rule 16. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the Munsiff’s order. The decision reiterates the narrow scope of striking pleadings and respects contested issues; Appendix exhibits were considered.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaOrder 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Power to strike out pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC
Pleadings may be struck only if they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial; or constitute abuse of process

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued for striking down the 27th defendant’s written statement under Order 6 Rule 16, asserting that the 27th defendant claimed tenancy over 50 cents of the plaint schedule property under a prior title and that similar contentions by others had been rejected by the court previously. They contended the plea is unnecessary and prejudicial, and seeks to expand rights beyond the original suit. They relied on OA 506/89 (Land Tribunal) to show inconsistent findings and urged the court to strike down the pleadings accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The 27th defendant argued that the tenancy claim over 50 cents is specific and part of the 10-acre plaint schedule; the plea is not covered by Rule 16’s narrow ambit and does not amount to an abuse of process. He asserted that the same title is not identical to the claims of Parvathy, Dakshayani and others and that the order of the Land Tribunal does not bind this case; hence the plea should not be struck down.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bhikaji Kesho Joshi & anr. v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani & Ors	AIR 1955 SC 610; 1955 KHC 399	Positive	Cited to illustrate the scope of Rule 16 and the admissible grounds for striking pleadings.
Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh	AIR 1982 SC 1559	Positive	Cited to emphasize that the power to strike pleadings is limited to where pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous, or tending to prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA,** **1943** **OP(C) NO. 2193 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2015 IN I.A.NO.3633/2014 IN OS 788/1993 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT** **-I,NEYYATTINKARA** ## **PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:** 1 SUMITHRAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARA PANICKER, VADAKKEVILA KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUKAL DESOM, ANAVOOR VILLAGE. 2 KUMARI MINI D/O.OMANA, VADAKKEVILA KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUKAL DESOM, ANAVOOR VILLAGE. 3 RENUKA DEVI D/O.OMANA, VADAKKEVILA KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUKAL DESOM, ANAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. G.P.SHINOD GOVIND PADMANAABHAN AJIT G ANJARLEKAR ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/27TH DEFENDANT:** NEELAKANTAN S/O.KESAVA PANICKER, KUZHIMADATH VEEDU, NEAR NEYYATTINKARA KRISHNAN COIL, KADAVATTTARAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM 695 121. BY ADV SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2022, THE COURT ON 14.02.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 O.P(C).No.2193 of 2015 _**“C.R”**_ _**A. BADHARUDEEN, J.**_ ================================ _O.P(C).No.2193 of 2015_ ================================ _Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2022_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ Plaintiffs in O.S.No.788/1993 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Neyyattinkara, who are aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.3633/2014 dated 09.06.2015, have preferred this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the contesting 27[th] defendant, since other parties not arrayed in this Original Petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners filed petition under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure to strike down the contentions in the written statement filed by the 27[th] defendant, whereby 27[th] defendant claimed right over the plaint schedule property as per 3 O.P(C).No.2193 of 2015 settlement deed No.1528/1997 and also claimed leasehold right over 50 cent forming part of the plaint schedule items, in continuation of enjoyment of the said right by his father Keshava Panicker. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the court below failed to note that defendants 22, 23 and 25, litigating under the same title, raised contentions of similar nature as raised by the 27[th] defendant and was found against, as per Ext.P4, the order in O.A.No.506/89 dated 06.03.1992, the Land Tribunal. It was found by the Land Tribunal that Parvathy, Dakshayani, Viswambharan and Ramachandran were not entitled to get fixity of tenure. Therefore, the 27[th] defendant, who is claiming right under the same title and was declared exparte earlier, cannot raise the said plea in the written statement subsequently filed and the same is liable to be struck down by invoking power under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. While repelling this contention, the learned counsel 4 O.P(C).No.2193 of 2015 for the 27[th] defendant submitted that the total extent of plaint schedule property is 10 acre of land and out of the same, 27[th] defendant put up independent claim of tenancy in respect of 50 cent alone and the said property is not the property claimed by Parvathy, Dakshayani and others as per O.A.506/89. Therefore, the prayer canvassed to strike down the pleadings of the 27[th] defendant cannot be allowed and therefore the court below rightly negatived the said contention. Here the total extent of plaint A schedule property is 10 acre, out of which Parvathy, Dakshayani and others claimed leasehold right in respect of 6.50 acres. The same was found against. However, it could not be held that 50 cent out of 10 acres, over which the 27[th] defendant asserts leasehold right, may not be the same portion of the property. 4. In such view of the matter, the legal issue is; what are the parameters to be borne in mind while striking down pleadings ? 5. In this connection, I am inclined to extract Rule 16 5 O.P(C).No.2193 of 2015 ## of Order 6 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, embarass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or_ _(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court."_ So it is abundantly clear that the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, strike down or amend the pleadings if the pleadings come under the category of (a) to (c) referred above. 6. In this connection, I am inclined to refer an earlier decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in [AIR 1955 SC 610 : 1955 KHC 399], _**Bhikaji Kesho Joshi & anr.**_ _**v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani & Ors**_ . In the said decision, while interpreting scope of this provision it was held that under this rule, court can strike out the pleadings which are vague or unnecessary. In another decision reported in [AIR 1982 SC 1559], _**Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh**_ , the Apex Court 6 O.P(C).No.2193 of 2015 held that the power to strike out or pleadings of his adversary, cannot be exercised by the court unless the said pleaindgs are unnecessary, scandalous or tending to prejudice, embarass or delay a fair trial. 7. **Thus the parameters to be borne in mind before passing an order to strike down the pleadings are : (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, as provided under Rule 16 of Order 6 and not otherwise. To put it differently, valid contntions raised by the defendant in his written statement which would require adjudication cannot be struck down under Rule 16 of Order 6.** 8. In the case on hand, the 27[th] defendant filed written statement claiming tenancy right in respect of 50 cent of property out of 10 acres. The said plea cannot be considered 7 O.P(C).No.2193 of 2015 as one covered by Rule 16 (a) to (c) of Order 6 of C.P.C, so as to strike down the same. Therefore, I am of the view that the prayer canvassed by the petitioner cannot sustain. Since the order of the learned Munsiff impugned herein does not suffer from any perversity or arbitrariness, the Original Petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. _Sd/-_ **(** _**A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/_ 8 O.P(C).No.2193 of 2015 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2193/2015** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.788/1993 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.33364/2008 DATED 12/10/2009. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.788/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 13/6/2011. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/3/1992 IN OA NO.506/89 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO.3633 OF 2014 IN OS NO.788/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 1/7/2014. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9/6/2015 IN IA NO.3633/2014 IN OS NO.788/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-1, NEYYATTINKARA. ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 27TH DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.788/1993. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2013 IN O.P(C).NO.452 OF 2013 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.7.1993 IN O.S.NO.1208 OF 1988 BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.