The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code should be applied to determine whether a written statement can be withdrawn, and the potential prejudice to the parties involved should be considered.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.918 of 2015.)

1. This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 22.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.918 of 2015 by the learned II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The third respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.918 of 2015 for declaration and permanent injunction, against the petitioner/second defendant. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 16, to permit them to withdraw the written statement said to have been filed by them in the above suit. Their contention in the petition is that though at the time of institution of the suit, the first respondent filed the written statement and the same was adopted by the petitioner and the second respondent, thereafter the conduct of the petitioner has changed and therefore, it has become necessary to strike out the written statement of the respondents 1 and 2 and thereby permitting them to withdraw their written statement already filed by them in the above suit.

3. The same was resisted by the third respondent/plaintiff stating that the facts made in the written statement cannot be struck off by way of filing this application. Moreover, Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C., deals with the amendment or striking out the pleadings and the same cannot be struck off unless, the pleadings are shown to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may embarrass or delay the process of fair trial or it is otherwise. The first and second respondents by way of this application are alleging scandalous and vexatious averments as against this petitioner. Therefore, the petition to strike out the entire written statement filed by the respondents can never be entertained.

4. The trial Court, after considering the averments made in the petition and in the counter affidavit and the arguments put-forth by the respective counsel, allowed the application. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/second defendant would contend that the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 3 have taken a contradictory statement, after adopting the statement filed by the petitioner and they cannot seek to withdraw their own pleadings, after a lapse of 7 years. As per Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C., they could prefer only to strike off the pleadings and not to withdraw the written statement, which would lead to abuse of process of law. The pleading can be strike off only when the suit is scandalous and unnecessary. The learned counsel would further contend that when the hearing of the suit had commenced, the application has been filed under Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C., amount to abuse of process of the Court. The defendants cannot be permitted to adduce destructive pleadings. When the plea sought to be raised is totally inconsistent with the original plea, the same cannot be permitted by the Court. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court allowing the above petition is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) In the case of Sivagnanamoorthy-Vs-M.Shanmugam, reported in 2003(3)CTC 705.

(ii) In the case of D.Lalitha and others-Vs-Rangasan and others, reported in 2013(3) MWN (Civil) 13.

(iii) In the case of S.Malla Reddy-Vs-Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society and others, reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 349.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that since the conduct of the petitioner turned hostile towards them and therefore the plea taken in the wri