Back
1995 Supreme(Raj) 38
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : P.P. Naolekar
Iqbal - Appellant
Versus
Hakimuddin - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 649 of 1987
Decided On : 01/17/1995
L.B. Mehta, for the Appellant
Y.H. Muchhala, S.C. Gupta and N.P. Gupta, for the Respondents
Allegations that are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious can be struck out under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, as they are not relevant to the relief sought in the plaint and are not required to be set up by the defendants to meet the plaintiffs' case.
Headnote:
RELIGIOUS TRUST - TRUSTEESHIP - AUTHORITY OF DAI-UL-MUTLAQ - INTERFERENCE WITH RELIGIOUS PRACTICES - INJUNCTION - ORDER 6, RULE 16 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - RELEVANCY OF ALLEGATIONS - STRIKE OUT OF UNNECESSARY AND EMBARRASSING ALLEGATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Dawoodi Bohras, filed a suit seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right to enter and perform religious ceremonies in four mosques under the authority of the Dai-Ul-Mutlaq, their spiritual leader. The defendants, a section of Dawoodi Bohras, formed the Bobra Youth Association and claimed that the Dai-Ul-Mutlaq's authority was limited to spiritual matters and that he had no right to interfere in secular matters. They alleged that the Dai-Ul-Mutlaq had exploited the community through practices like Misaq (oath of allegiance), Barat (excommunication), and Raza (permission). The plaintiffs filed applications under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code to strike out certain allegations in the defendants' written statement, which they claimed were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, and intended to embarrass them and delay the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations made by the defendants regarding Misaq, Barat, and Raza were unnecessary and would embarrass and delay the fair trial of the suit. It found that these allegations were not relevant to the relief sought in the plaint and that the defendants were not required to set them up to meet the plaintiffs' case. The court also noted that there was no prayer made or relief claimed in respect of Misaq, Barat, and Raza, and that the introduction of these allegations by the defendants was an attempt to enlarge the scope of the suit beyond what had been pleaded by the plaintiffs.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations made by the defendants regarding Misaq, Barat, and Raza were necessary for establishing their defence. 2. Whether the allegations were relevant to the relief sought in the plaint. 3. Whether the allegations were scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of Order 6, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows the court to strike out allegations that are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious. The court held that the allegations regarding Misaq, Barat, and Raza were unnecessary because they were not relevant to the relief sought in the plaint and were not required to be set up by the defendants to meet the plaintiffs' case. The court also found that the allegations were potentially embarrassing and could delay the fair trial of the suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the defendants, upholding the trial court's order to strike out the allegations regarding Misaq, Barat, and Raza from the defendants' written statement.
P.P. Naolekar, J.-The decision in this revision shall also decide S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 699/87 ‘Shri Abdeali Chanchuliwala Bobra vs. Shri Harimuddin’, S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 700/87 ‘Shri Imran Hussain vs. Shri Hakmuddin and S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 70 1/87 ‘Shri Mohammed Hussain vs. Shri Hakuimuddin’. In all these revisions, a common question of law and fact is involved.
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the question involved in the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents are Dawoodi Bohras belonging to the Dawoodi Bohra Community, which is a religious denomination and whose spritual leader and the religious head is the Dai-Ul-Mutlaq.
.3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit claiming the relief :-
.(a) That the defendants by themselves, their servants and agents or any person styling himself as Bohra Youth Association or any member thereof be restrained by permanent injunction from preventing the plaintiffs and other Dawoodi Bohras owing allegiance to their spititual leader and religious head, the Dai-Ul-Mutlaq from entering the Masjids/ mosques as described in the plaint and from offering or participating in the Imamat/ Jamaat Namaz/ prayers led by the Pesh Imam appointed or nominated or under the authority and/or permission and/or under the auspices of Dai-Ul-Mutlaq and/or or attending or participating in any Vaiz, Majlis or other religious functions, gatherings and ceremonies held that the permission of and/or under the authority and/or under the auspices of the Dai-Ul-Mutlaq or from in any manner interfering or disturbing Imamat/Jamaat Namaz being conducted in the four masjids/ mosques or from disturbing or interfering with Vaiz, Majlis or any other religious ceremony or function.
.(b) That the defendants by themselves and by their servants and agents or any person claiming under or through them or any person styling as Bohra Youth Association or any members thereof owing allegiance to the so-called Dawoodi Bohra Jammat, Udaipur or any member thereof be restrained by a permanent injunction from holding their separate Imamat/Jamaat Namaz and/or from holding Vaiz Majlis and other religious functions, ceremonies or gatherings in their said four masjids/mosques.
4. The said reliefs are claimed on the allegations, that the present spiritual leader and religious head of the Dawoodi Bqhra Community is His Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burahanuddin Saheb being the 52nd Dai-UI-Mutlaq. The Dawoodi Bohra Community consists of Muslims of Shia sect, holding the belief that there is one God; that Mohammed is His Prophet to whom he revealed the Holy Book (Koran); that Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed was the Wasi (Executor) of the latter and that Ali succeeded Mohammed by Nas-e-Jali. Dawoodi Bohra believe that Ali, son-in-law of Mohammed was succeeded by the line of Imams, each of whom in turn was appointed by Nas-e-Jali by his immediate predecessor. Later on, the Shia Sect itself became divided into two sects respectively as Ismailia and Ishna Asharia, Dawoodi Bohra belong to the former sect and believe that owing to persecution, Imam Teyeb (21st Imam) went into seclusion and that an Imam from his line will appear, it being their belief that an Imam always exists; that owing to the impending seclusion of the 21st Imam (Imam Teyeb), his predecessor, the 20th Imam, directed his Hujjat (a dignitary ranking next to an Imam), one Hurra-tul-Maleka, to appoint a Dai (Missionary), a Mazoon (a dignitary ranking next to a Dai) and Mukasir (a dignitary ranking next to a Mazoon) to carry on the Dawat of the Imam so long as the Imam, who remains in seclusion. It is the accepted tenet of the Dawoodi Bohra faith that God always had and still has a representative on Earth through whom His commands are conveyed to his people. The representative is the Imam. The Dai is the representative of the Imam and conveyed God’s message to his people. When the Imam comes out of seclusion, the powers of the Dai would cease.
5. I
