High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shri Gangaram v. Judge Small Cause Court Kairana, Muzaffarnagar And Others - WRIT - A No. 62407 of 2006  RD-AH 19430 (16 November 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62407 of 2006
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.