BALJIT KAUR Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the petitioner, who is defendant No. 1 in the suit, has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for striking out the offensive pleadings and deserves to be expedited. The application was filed on 4.1.2013 and has remained pending. The order sheet has been reproduced in the petition. A reading of the zimni orders passed on the order sheet discloses that the reply to the application was filed without delay on 8.1.2013 and after that, the matter has kept lingering on either on joint requests made for adjournment, or requests of the plaintiff for adjournment of the case, or were dates when arguments were not heard or when both the counsel were not prepared and ready for arguments, e.g., on 29.11.2013 or due to non -availability' of counsel etc. and the position has remained so till the present with no decision rendered on the interlocutory application. A direction is sought from this Court to expedite the matter before the trial Court at Faridkot to decide the application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC in a time bound manner so that the trial can proceed after decision.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to two paragraphs of the plaint which he submits should be struck off as they fall within the teeth of Order 6 Rule 16(A) inasmuch as they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and are in the abuse of the process of the Court and not required to decide the dispute. The offending parts of the plaint as perceived by the petitioner are reproduced below: - -

(3.) IT is contended that when the plaintiff talks about "mysterious circumstances" in the plaint and connects it with "latest development of the bitterness of relationship amongst the parties to this lis" and "the evil, full of greed" and "ulterior motives designs" and "moves of the defendants", and of not divulging details leaving an impression in the mind that they are unspeakable, or that defendant No. 2 who is the husband of the petitioner defendant No. 1, being in a dominating position may obtain any document, right or authority from defendant No. 1 for committing any sort of mischief etc. and for which reason he has been purposely arrayed as co -defendant though has no personal right in the suit property is claimed against him as he can claim only through his wife; he is trying to prejudice the mind of the court and therefore such pleadings deserve to be ordered to be deleted before issues are framed and the parties put to trial on them.