The court ruled that striking out pleadings requires compelling justification, and mere defenses from the opposite party do not justify such action.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.522/2025 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.6/2025 dated 25.11.2025, whereby the said application filed by 3^rd respondent - 3^rd defendant under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC seeking striking of the pleadings in relation to the 3^rd respondent -3^rd defendant and also delete property bearing suit Item No.’d’ from the array of properties was allowed by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and learned AGA for respondent No.8 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 are dispensed with.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties comprising of 8 items of suit schedule properties. The said suit is being contested by the respondents-defendants including the defendant No.3, who inter alia contented that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share, right, title, interest or possession in the suit schedule properties. In addition thereto, the defendant No.3 filed the instant application invoking Order VI Rule 16 CPC to strike off the pleadings of the plaintiff pertaining to the defendant No.3 and in respect of Item No.’d’ against defendant No.3. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff did not have any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property since the Item No.’d’ of the suit schedule property had been sold by the wife of Narasimhaiah i.e., Smt. Lakshmamma and his sons, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 for valuable consideration and since the said alienation had taken place prior to 20.12.2004 as contemplated in the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment Act) 2005, the petitioner-plaintiff would not be entitled to any share in the suit schedule property. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the entire plaint there is no reference to the said sale deed and the said fact is pleaded by defendant No.3 in the written statement, who has also produced the said document in support of his defence. It is trite law that for the purpose of striking off pleadings, the essential preconditions/mandatory requirement is that the pleading should be vexatious, frivolous, scurrilous, contemptuous etc., and should warrant invocation of the extreme drastic step of striking of pleadings without permitting parties to lead evidence in support of their claims. In the instant case, the plaint of the plaintiffs reads as under:

PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER VII Rule 1 & 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF'S

The above named plaintiffs, in the above case, most respectfully submits as follows:-

1. That, the address of the plaintiff for the purpose of service of suit summons and notices etc., is as shown in the cause title of the plaint and that of their Counsels are Siddalingappa P Advocates, Sandur – 583 119. And that of the Defendants for the like purposes is as shown in the cause title of the plaint.

2. Description of the suit properties:

a) That, the land bearing Sy. No.51/2 me