JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C., to set aside the order dated 10.01.2022, passed in I.A.No.53 of 2021 in O.S.No.21 of 2021, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tindivanam.)

This civil revision petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, dated 10.01.2022, made in I.A.No.53 of 2021 in O.S.No.21 of 2021.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.21 of 2021. The plaintiff has filed a suit for the reliefs of permanent injunction, declaring the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the defendants 4 to 7, as null and void and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners/defendants filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.53 of 2021, to strike off the pleadings of the plaint of the respondent/plaintiff. The said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the civil revision petitioners filed this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff by claiming herself as the wife of late one Radja itself is frivolous, scandalous and the plaint cannot be maintained on the basis of the pleading so made by the respondent/plaintiff and hence, it is liable to be struck off.

5. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the alleged Will dated 12.07.2019 itself is a concocted document and the conduct of the respondent/plaintiff that she is making false claim of the property, will be evident through the existence of two Wills dated 12.07.2019, with different particulars; the intention of the respondent/plaintiff is nothing but to grab the suit properties from the civil revision petitioners who are the lawful owners.

6. Before adverting into the merits of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is worthwhile to extract the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C., which is relevant to striking out pleadings. The said provision is extracted hereunder:

Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C. : 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.”

The above provision empowers the Court to strike off any matter in the pleadings which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and because of which, embarrassment, prejudice and delay would occur for a fair trial of the case.

7. In the petition filed by the revision petitioners/defendants, no specific matter or content of the pleadings is highlighted for the purpose of striking off the same in the context stated under Order 6 Rule 16. The revision petitioners prayed to strike off the entire plaint by stating that the allegations made in the plaint are frivolous and scandalous. The first defendant has filed a written statement by stating that the respondent/plaintiff is not the wife of late Radja, but, the first defendant alone is his wife; the respondent/plaintiff falsely claims that she is the second wife of late Radja and she can never be the wife of late Radja, since the marriage between the first defendant and Radja was subsisting till his death; the respondent professes Muslim religion and the late Radja is a Hindu; so, there is no possibility for a marriage between the respondent/plaintiff and the late Radja as claimed by the respondent.

8. When the plaintiff files a suit on the basis of certain pleadings and claims a relief, the burden lies on the shoulders of the plaintiff to prove her pleadings. If false claim is made based on the false averments in the plaint, the risk goes wit