Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shri Gangaram v. Judge Small Cause Court Kairana, Muzaffarnagar And Others - WRIT - A No. 62407 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19430 (16 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62407 of 2006

Shri Gangaram  


Judge, Small Cause Court, Kairana, Muzaffarnagar  

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Judge, Small Cause Court to dispose of SCC Suit No.1 of 1993 Gangaram Vs. Janardhan Dutt (dead) within a stipulated period without accepting  any written statement of legal heirs of the deceased tenant Janardhan Dutt. The petitioner has  placed  reliance on Order 6 Rule 16 CPC and has contended that in view of said provisions the heirs of an  original tenant who had already filed written statement, cannot be permitted to file written statement. Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C. is quoted herebelow:-

"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, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or

(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court."

From a perusal of Order 6 Rule 16 CPC it appears that  court may at any stage of the  proceedings order to strike out or amend any matter in a pleading  which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the  fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise an abuse of process of the court.

In view of the aforesaid provisions, the contention of the  learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. The heirs of a deceased


tenant cannot be debarred from taking their defence or pleadings on the strength of Order 6 Rule 16 CPC. The reliance placed by learned counsel on the said provision is misconceived.

This writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

It has further been stated  that the matter is  of the year 1993 and 13 years have elapsed but the same has not been decided finally. In view of above it is expected that trial court will decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and will not grant unavoidable and unnecessary adjournment to the parties. No order is passed as to costs.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.