Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition is at the instance of the defendant in the suit challenging the order of the trial Court dated 11/3/2014 whereby the trial Court has rejected the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC.
Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset has submitted that he is not pressing the rejection of his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, therefore the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order to the extent of rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is rejected as not pressed.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties, it is noticed that while rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC, the trial Court has assigned proper reasons. The trial Court has noted that though earlier the respondent had filed suit for divorce but the matter was compromised between the parties and in terms of the compromise the suit was withdrawn by the respondent. The trial Court has also noted that in the compromise itself the respondent was given the right to file fresh suit for divorce if the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner is not found to be in accordance with the compromise. The respondent after disclosing all these facts has filed the second divorce petition. So far as the prayer relating to striking off the pleadings contained in para 1 to 9, 11, 12 to 17, 32 and 33 of the divorce petition is concerned, the sole argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that the same pleadings were contained in the earlier divorce petition, therefore, the respondent should be directed to strike off these pleadings.
The plea which the counsel for petitioner is raising is not covered by any of the clauses of the Order 6 Rule 16 CPC which provides for striking off the pleadings which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
The trial Court has assigned just and proper reasons while rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC. The scope of interference even otherwise in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited. No ground for interference is made out.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC.
Comments