JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J.

I.A. No. 6659/2012 (by Defendant Nos. 1 & 3 u/Order VI Rule 16 r/w Section 151 CPC)

1. By this application the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 seek striking out the defamatory and irrelevant pleadings from the plaint.

2. Learned counsel for Plaintiff submits that the prayer of the Plaintiff in the suit is for declaration of Agreement to Sell dated 22nd September, 2010 executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of Defendant No. 4 in respect of the First Floor of the property bearing No. D-837, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065, as null and void ab-initio and therefore vests no right, title or interest in the Defendant No. 4; grant of mandatory and permanent injunction directing defendant No.4 or her representatives, assignees or successors from alienating or parting with possession of the suit property during the pendency of suit and to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff in the event the alleged lessee Mr. Ranjeet Kukreja surrender possession thereof and awarding of costs of the suit to the plaintiff. Thus the averments with regard to the alleged relations between Defendant No. 1 and her husband are irrelevant and not necessary for the adjudication of the suit besides being false and baseless.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 submits that in the plaint the Plaintiff who is the brother-in-law of Defendant No. 1 and uncle of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, has made defamatory and malicious averments with regard to the matrimonial relations between his deceased brother Shri Ajay Khanna and Defendant No. 1, the wife of late Shri Ajay Khanna. He has also casted aspersions on the paternity of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The averments made in the plaint have not relevant to the issue involved in the suit. Reliance is placed on Sathi Vijay Kumar, 2006 (13) SCC 353; Manjit K. Singh vs. S. Kanwarjit Singh, 58 (1995) DLT 208 and Mrs. Rekha Singal vs. Lavleen Singal, 96 (2002) DLT 289.

4. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff/non-applicant on the other hand contends that the averments which are sought to be deleted are based on the Will of his late brother/ husband of Defendant No. 1 and thus cannot be said to be scandalous, malicious, false, fabricated or irrelevant so as to direct expunging the same from the pleadings.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. As mentioned above the present suit is for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and for possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 are the wife and children of deceased brother of the Plaintiff. The case of the Plaintiff in the suit is that the father of the Plaintiff and father- in-law of Defendant No. 1 died on 8th June, 1997 leaving behind the Will dated 6th March, 1997 bequeathing therein all his movable and immovable assets to the Plaintiff and his late brother Shri Ajay Khanna, who also unfortunately died prematurely on 31st January, 2000.

7. Order VI Rule 16 CPC reads as under:

"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."

8. Thus this provision clearly empowers the Court to strike out any pleading if it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tends to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or is otherwise an abuse of the process of Court. The underlying object of the Rule is to ensure that every party to a suit presents his pleading in an intelligible form without causing embarrassment to his adversary. In Sathi Vijay Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 held:

"27. The above provision empowers a Court to strike out any pleading if it is unnecessary, scandalous, friv