The court emphasized the need to exercise the jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 16 with great care and caution, and clarified the limits of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

1. C. R. P. No. 94 of 1953 and C. R. P. No. 95 of 1953 are against the orders of the learned Additional District Judge of Trivandrum in C. M. P. No. 7044 dated 22-11-1952 in O. S. No. 275 of 1951 and C. M. P. No. 6961 dated 22-11-1952 in O. S. No. 278 of 1951 respectively, granting the prayer of the defendant for striking out certain portions of the plaints and replications in those suits under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Order VI Rule 16 which is a re-production of the English Order XIX Rule 27 provides that:

"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading which may be unnecessary or scandalous or which may tend to prejudice, embarass or delay the fair trial of the suit."

3. There is no doubt that nothing can be scandalous which is relevant (per Cotton, L, J., Fisher v. Owen, (1878) 8 C. D. 645) and that the jurisdiction which is given to the court under Order VI Rule 16 is one which ought to be exercised with great care and caution (A. I. R. 1925 Calcutta 860 and A. I. R. 1951 Nagpur 412).

4. There can also be no doubt that the court has a duty to discharge towards the public and the suitors, in taking care that its records are kept free from irrelevant and scandalous matter (per Selbourne, L. C., Christe v. Christe (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. 499) and the best statement of the principle underlying this rule is still in the oft-quoted passages of Bowen, L. J., in Kriowels v. Roberts, (1888) 38 C. D. 263:

"It seems to me that the rule that the court is not to dictate to parties how they should frame their case, is one that ought always to be preserved sacred. But that rule is, of course, subject to this modification and limitation, that the parties must not offend against the rules of pleading which have been laid down by the law; and if a party introduces a pleading which is unnecessary, and it lends to prejudice, embarass and delay the trial of the action, it then becomes a pleading which is beyond his right."

and of section 270 of Story's Equity Pleadings (10th Edn.):

"Scandal is calculated to do great and permanent injury to all persons whom it affects, by making the records of the court the means of perpetuating libellous and malignant slanders, and the court, in aid of the public morals, is bound to interfere to suppress such indecencies which may stain the reputation and wound the feelings of the parties and their relations and friends."

5. O. S. No. 275 is to set aside a sale deed, document No. 2260, dated 12-4-1122 and O. S. No. 278 is to set aside another sale deed, document No. 4696, dated 30-9-1122 in favour of the defendant. The first plaintiff in both the suits is the wife of the second plaintiff and the ground on which the declaration is sought is that the documents are not supported by consideration and that they were the result of coercion, fraud and undue influence. The second plaintiff was the kariakar of the Vadakke Kottaram from 1109 to 1122 and the contention of the defendant is that the sale deeds were voluntarily executed in part payment of a large sum of money found due from the second plaintiff in his official capacity.

6. The passages complained about occur in paragraphs 4, 25 and 27 of the plaint and paragraphs 3, 8, 21 and 27 of the replication in O. S. No. 275 of 1951 and paragraphs 4 and 32 of the plaint and paragraphs 2, 8, 10, and 12 of the replication in O. S. No. 278 of 1951. We have scrutinised the pleadings carefully and have come to the definite conclusion that the passages specified in C. M. P. Nos. 6961 and 7044 should be eliminated. There can be no doubt that those passages attributing a de facto position to the defendant in the administration of Travancore and alleging an exploitation of that position by her are not only unnecessary for a proper adjudication but scandalous in the extreme, and inserted apparently with the sole and deliberate intention of prejudicing, embarrassing and delaying the fair t