GIRIJA SANKAR DWIBEDI Vs. SOMANATH DWIBEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 7 are the petitioners before this Court questioning the legality of the order dated 8.8.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela in Civil Suit No. 60 of 2005 rejecting an application filed by them under Order 6, Rule 16 C.P.C. for a direction to the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 to strike out the unnecessary pleadings appearing in paragraphs 4 to 9 and 11 to 17 of the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 has filed a suit for declaration that the registered will dated 16.1.2004 had not been executed by the deceased Dhaneswari Dwibedi and alternatively for a declaration that the said registered will is invalid, void and not enforceable in the eye of law and for further declaration that the legal proceedings including Mutation Case Nos. 565, 566 and 567 of 2004 pending before the Tahasiidar, Rourkela on the basis of the said will are not maintainable.

(3.) SHRI N.C.Pati, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the pleadings in the aforesaid paragraphs are mostly unnecessary for deciding the case keeping in mind the nature of dispute between the parties and the relief prayed for. According to the learned Counsel, the entire relief in the suit relates to legality of the will dated 16.1,2004 and, therefore, all averments relating to execution of the will or acquisition of land covered under the will may be necessary for the purpose of deciding the suit but in respect of other properties which neither covered under the will nor in dispute need not be pleaded since they are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the suit. It is further submitted that the pleadings in the aforesaid paragraphs clearly give a picture of family genealogy, the manner in which the properties were acquired by the family, which not only cover the properties under the will but also some other properties which are not in dispute and accordingly, those parts, of the pleadings which do not relate to the will or the properties covered under the will are irrelevant and unnecessary. Shri Sahu, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 on the other hand, submitted that unless the family history and the manner in which the properties were acquired are pleaded, it may not be possible on the part of the plaintiff to prove his case in absence of the pleadings. Shri Sahu, the learned Counsel further submitted that the family genealogy and the manner in which the properties were acquired by the parties are relevant and cannot be called unnecessary, vexatious or scandalous for the purpose of deciding the suit.