JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. By this notice of motion filed by the applicants (original defendant nos. 1(a) and 2) under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicants pray that the written statement filed by the defendant nos. 3 to 5 be struck off. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are as under:-

2. On 17th July, 1961, Maharaja Jivajirao Scindia, the former ruler of the erstwhile princely State of Gwalior died intestate, leaving behind diverse immoveable and moveable properties and leaving behind him (1) Smt. Vijayaraje Jivajirao Scindia (widow), the original plaintiff, (2) Shri Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia (son) original defendant no. 1, (3) Smt. Madhavi Raje Madhavrao Scindia (daughter-in-law) defendant no. 2, (4) Smt. Usharaje Rana Pashupati Singh (daughter) defendant no. 3, (5) Smt. Vasundhara Raje Hemant Singh (daughter) defendant no. 4, (6) Smt. Yashodharaje Bhansali (daughter), defendant no. 5, (7) Smt. Padma Raje who died leaving behind her two daughters (i) Ms. Kanikadevi Deo Burman and (ii) Ms. Pratimadevi Rana Burman (defendant nos. 6 and 7).

3. On 9th August, 1984, the original plaintiff in her capacity as the widow of the Maharaja Jivajirao Scindia (the said deceased) filed a suit bearing no. 1861 of 1984 in this court inter-alia praying for partition and division of the moveable estate of the said deceased on the ground that the said property was HUF property. It was the case of the plaintiff that the said deceased was the Karta and Manager of the said joint and undivided Hindu Family known as the Sir H.H. Jivajirao (HUF). In the said suit the original plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to 50% undivided share in the properties of the said deceased and the balance 50% undivided share allegedly belonged to the original defendant no. 1 i.e. Shri Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia. The original plaintiff also filed a notice of motion bearing no. 1742 of 1985 in the said suit on 13th August, 1984 praying for various interim reliefs in respect of the said moveable estate of the said deceased. In the affidavit in support of the said notice of motion, the original plaintiff had averred that the estate of the said deceased divided in equal share between the original plaintiff and the original defendant no. 1.

4. On 23rd September, 1985, the original plaintiff also filed a Special Civil Suit No. 705 of 1985 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior division, Pune seeking declaration, partition and possession of her alleged 50% share in the immoveable properties of the deceased on the ground that those properties were HUF properties. The defendant nos. 3 to 7 in this suit were joined as defendant nos. 2 to 6 in the said Pune suit by the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff in the said suit prayed for a declaration that the original plaintiff and the original defendant no. 1 herein were entitled to 50% undivided share in the immoveable properties of the said deceased.

5. It is the case of the defendant no. 1(a) and 2 that the original defendant no. 4 in this suit on behalf of herself as well as on behalf of the original defendant no. 3 and 5 to 7 filed an affidavit in reply to the notice of motion filed by the original plaintiff on 15th October, 1985 stating that she had read a copy of the plaint, notice of motion and a copy of the affidavit in support of the said notice of motion filed by the original plaintiff and also copy of the affidavit in rejoinder thereto. The defendant nos. 3, 5 to 7 crave leave to repeat and reiterate all the averments submissions and statements made and contentions raised by the original plaintiff therein as if they were incorporated in the said affidavit verbatim and form part of her present affidavit. In the said affidavit, it was also prayed by those defendants that the notice of motion be made absolute with costs in the circumstances stated in the said affidavit filed by them.

6. It is the case of the defendant no. 1(a) and 2 that