STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. D JAYA VEERAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the Petitioner in the civil revision petition. It is against the Order in the Suit O.S. No. 96 of 1989. The said suit is for recovery of some amount due to the plaintiff-Bank from the defendant, though the defendant filed a written statement he was set ex parte as he was absent and the Court passed the impunged order which runs as follows :

(2.) The first prayer in the suit is to direct the defendant to pay Rs. 25,002.20, with interest thereon, etc. and the second prayer therein is as follows:

(3.) So, as per the second prayer, the plaintiff only wants sale of the hypothecated property, it also filled a hypothecation deed as document No. 1. I wonder how the learned Judge on his own accord without any material has come to the conclusion that the above said second prayer is scandulous, frivolous. It is settled law that the power given to the Court under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code to strike out any pleading, on the ground it is scandulous frivolous etc., should be exercised with great care and caution. While so, even though the defendant has not raised any such allegation in the Written statement and even though he has not chosen to file any application for striking out any part of the pleadings, the Court below has chosen to pass the impugned order without even giving any reason whatsoever for coming to the conclusion it reached. It is indeed very much regrettable that the Court below has acted in this way.