ALEKH SAHOO Vs. SUDHANSU MOHAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in this petition have challenged the order dated 3.2.2014 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Athgarh in C.S.(I) 44 of 2009 allowing an application under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Plaintiffs to strikeout the pleadings made by the defendants in the written statement. The defendants are the Petitioners. The Opp. Parties are the Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title & interest & for recovery of possession. They also claimed mandatory injunction along with other reliefs. The Plaintiffs pleaded inter alia that they are the successor in interest of one Lingaraj Khadenga. In O.L.R. Case No. 1 of 1997 the defendants were evicted from the suit land & delivery of possession was given to the Plaintiffs on 18.12.2006 by the R.I. Sadar, Athgarh, From the said date they are in possession of the land uninterruptedly & constructed two rooms at the Western side of the suit land & construction was raised up to lintel level. Their construction was objected by defendant No. 7 on the guise of ownership over the suit land. She claimed that she has purchased part of the property by Registered Sale Deed dated 19.5.2006 from the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 who have no right over the property they being evicted from the suit land in O.L.R Case No. 1 of 1997. In the plaint they have also disclosed I.C.C. No. 92 of 2008. As the defendants create cloud to the entitlement of the Plaintiffs the suit was filed with the aforesaid relief. The defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed their written statement jointly traversing the plaint allegation. They have taken a stand that due to death of Golekh Sahoo on 20.10.2001 the O.L.R Case was abated for non-prosecution of his legal heirs. They have not received any notice for delivery of possession as claimed by the Plaintiffs through R1. & as the O.L.R case was abated the order passed in said case was not binding on them. White they are continuing in possession or the property, they have executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 7 & the purchaser is in possession of the property from the date of sale deed. She has constructed two pucca rooms over her purchased land. They also averred that Plaintiff No. 2 is a notorious & mischievous person in the locality & Plaintiff No. 3 in his accused statement in Sessions Case (S.T. Case No. 685 of 2002) stated so & created disturbance in the possession of defendants. They have filed O.L.R Appeal No. 1 of 2009 which was pending therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the case & is liable to be dismissed. After receiving the copy of the written statement the Plaintiffs have filed an application under Order, 6 Rule, 16 of the C.P.C. to strikeout the pleadings of the defendants regarding Plaintiff No. 2 as a notorious & mischievous person in the locality & Plaintiff No. 3's accused statement in the aforesaid Sessions case as those pleadings are unnecessary, irrelevant & scandalous & no connection with the present dispute. The defendants have filed their objection denying the allegation made by the Plaintiffs & reiterated the said facts which was necessary for proper determination of the dispute between the parties. The criminal case is matter of record to show the conduct of the Plaintiffs to grab the property & those pleadings are necessary to ascertain the real intention of the Plaintiffs as such the pleadings need not be strikeout.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that as those pleadings are necessary & those are the matter of records there is no materials on record to come to a conclusion that the said pleadings are unnecessary & vexatious or may prejudice the Plaintiffs therefore the impugned order need be interfered with & defendants are relying on those documents for their defence. In support of his contention he has relied on the decisionsUdhav Singh V. Madhav Rao Scindia, 1976 AIR(SC) 744S.M.N. Abdi V. Bennett Coleman & Co. Limited & Ors.,1989 1 OrissaLR 165

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties submitted that the defendants are no way connected with the Sessions case therefore the accused statement made by the Plaintiff No. 3 in the said Sessions case has no relevancy to the present case. Therefore the pleadings of the defendants in that respect are scandalous in nature & unnecessary hence rightly the court below directed to strikeout the said pleadings. in support of his contention he has relied on the decisions Sk. Illias v. Co-operative for American Relief Everywhere, India & Ors (CARE), 2007 AIR(Ori) 9Prasahna Kumar Patasani v. Janaki Ballav Pattnaik., 1997 AIR(Ori) 115