Godawaribai vs Malti Parmar - 1982 Supreme(MP) 65

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
C. L. Kotecha with Smt. Shimla Jain for the petitioner; T. C. Naik for respondent. No.1.

Headnote:(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- order 6, rule 16 -- plaintiff wanted to strike off certain claim --cannot be prevented from doing so.
        (2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 6, R. 16 and Order 8, rule 6-A -- request for striking off counter claim can be considered only after preliminary Issue is framed an the point.
        (3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 6, R. 16 and Order 6, rule 1 -- certain allegations unnecessary looking to the nature of the suit -- parties directed to delete them.
        It appears that before the trial Court, the applicant made a request for deletion of the part of his claim and also for direction to the non-applicant No.1 to delete certain allegation made in the written statement and also to strike out the counter claim made by the non· applicant No.1. All these prayers have been disallowed by the impugned order.
        Held: So far as deleting a part of the claim is concerned, the non-applicant possibly can have no objection. It appears that in the plaint, a claim for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has also been made along with the claim for dcc1aration as to entitlement of amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Counsel for the applicant states before me that the purpose of the application before the trial Court was to delete the additional claim for Rs. 25,000/. In my opinion, the applicant cannot be prevented to do so. Therefore he is allowed to delete such allegation in the plaint.
        So far as the request of the applicant for deleting the counter claim is concerned, I am of the opinion that the request is premature. The non-applicant No. 1 has made a counter claim but that matter can only be decided after the application is filed and necessary issues in that behalf arc framed,-and if this is done, the Court shall frame-an issue in that behalf and if requested, it can try it as a preliminary issue. In my opinion the order in that behalf is just and that part of the Order must be maintained.
        The third request made by the applicant is for deleting certain allegations From the written statement. These allegations relate to an explanation offered by the non-applicant No.1. In my opinion looking to the nature of the suit, the applicant should not have made any such statement. I therefore, direct that para 5 of the plaint and its answer in the written statement both shall be deleted. Revision partly allowed.