The power to strike out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC should be exercised sparingly and with extreme care, caution, and circumspection.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The impugned order dated 19th September, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in civil suit 10738/2016 (Brijesh Gupta v. Saroj Gupta) adjudicates four applications.

2. Three of these applications have been filed by the petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit, under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, "CPC"), under Order X of the CPC read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 151 of the CPC respectively. The application of the respondent, as the defendant in the suit, which also stands adjudicated by the impugned order, was filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC which, as the learned ADJ correctly holds, was the wrong provision.

3. Civil Suit no. 10738/2016 was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent, seeking (i) a decree of possession in respect of property located at A-793/1, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 (hereinafter "the suit property"), (ii) a decree for recovery of Rs.5,40,000/- along with pendent lite and future interest, (iii) a decree for mesne profits @ Rs.15,000/- per month towards use and occupation charges of the suit property and (iv) a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property.

The Plaint

4. The petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit, claims to be the owner of the suit property, having purchased it from Rakesh Kumar Puri, the erstwhile owner of the suit property, vide registered sale deed dated 27th September 2003 and 3rd October 2003. The plaint alleges that the respondent-defendant (who is the aunt of the plaintiff) has no right or title in respect of the suit property, though she is in occupation thereof. Alleging that the respondent was in the process of creating third party interest in the suit property, the petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent praying, as already noted, for possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction.

Written Statement of the respondent-defendant

5. The respondent-defendant filed a detailed written statement by way of response to the suit. It was alleged, in the written statement, that the portion of the suit property over which the petitioner-plaintiff claimed rights, was originally owned by late Munshi Ram, the grandfather of the petitioner and the father-in-law of the respondent. According to the written statement, Rakesh Kumar Puri who purportedly sold the suit property to the petitioner-plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the portion of the suit property sold to Munshi Ram. It was alleged that, after purchasing the aforesaid plot from Rakesh Kumar Puri, Munshi Ram erected certain constructions on the plot and of which Munshi Ram allowed Satbir Gupta, the father of the petitioner-plaintiff, to occupy a portion as a tenant. This fact, pleaded the written statement, was admitted by Satbir Gupta while applying to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for grant of municipal licence. The written statement further alleged that Suresh Gupta, the husband of the respondent, commenced business in the other portion of the suit property in 1979 and that, after Satbir Gupta vacated his portion of the suit property in 1981, Munshi Ram allowed Suresh Gupta to occupy the entire suit property. Proceeding from these assertions, the written statement averred thus in paras 4 to 13, 15 and 16, which paras alone constitute subject matter of the controversy in the present petition:

"4. That Shri Suresh Gupta, husband of the defendant had also started his business in other portion of the aforesaid property in the year 1979. However, after vacation of the property by Shri Satbir Gupta, late Munshi Ram allowed Sh. Suresh Gupta to use the entire property No. A-793/1 (also known as A-793/1A and as A-793).

5. That Shri Suresh Gupta, husband of the defendant, had been using the aforesaid property by giving No. A-793/1A or A-793/1, but infact and in reality both