Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack

Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:42:55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.694 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India)

Dalaganjan Sahu …. Petitioner

-versus-

Umakanta Singh …. Opposite Party

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate

CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

19^th August 2025

B.P.Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.

S. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

2. Present CMP is directed against impugned order dated 3^rd April, 2025 of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rampur passed in C.S. No.21 of 2024 wherein certain pleadings of the Defendant has been

struck down as per Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C.

Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:42:55

3. Present Opposite Party being the Plaintiff filed CS No.21 of 2024 against present Petitioner with a prayer for permanent injunction. The Defendant appeared and filed his written statement. In the written statement at paragraph 4 some remarks have been given in respect of one Advocate taking his name. This was objected by the Plaintiff and he filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 16 to delete said paragraph. The same was allowed vide the impugned order which is subject matter of challenge in present CMP.

4. Rule 16 of Order 6 authorizes the court to strick down any pleading, on the ground that; (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 process of the court.

5. In Sathi Vijay Kumar v. Tota Singh, (2006) 13 SCC 353, Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed as follows;

“27. The above provision empowers a court to strike out any pleading if it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tends to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the suit or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The underlying object of the Rule is to ensure that every party to a suit should present his pleading in an intelligible form without causing embarrassment to his adversary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:42:55 (vide Davy v. Garrett [(1878) 7 Ch D 473 : 47 LJ Ch 218 (CA)] ).

28. Bare reading of Rule 16 of Order 6 makes it clear that the court may order striking off of pleadings in the following circumstances:

(a) where such pleading is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (b) where such pleading tends to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the suit; or (c) where such pleading is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

29. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol.

9, Para 38), it has been stated:

“Certain acts of a lesser nature may also constitute an abuse of process as, for instance, initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona fides or which are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. In such cases the court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting the taking of further proceedings without leave. Where the court, by exercising its statutory powers, its powers under rules of court, or its inherent jurisdiction, can give an adequate remedy, it will not in general punish the abuse as a contempt of court. On the other hand, where an irregularity or misuse of process amounts to an offence against justice, extending its influence beyond the parties to the action, it may be punished as a contempt.”

31. Since the general principles as to pleadings in civil suits apply to election petitions as well, the pleadings which are required to be struck off under Rule 16 of Order 6 in a suit can also be ordered to be struck off in an election petition. In appropriate cases, therefore, an Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:42:55 El