IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.783 of 2019 Decided on 25th August, 2025 Siddhartha Ray …Petitioner Versus Narinder Kumar …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed be setting aside the order dated 31.08.2019, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in CMA No.64/2019 in CS No.22 of 2017 (Siddhartha Ray v. Narinder Kumar) by allowing the said application, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the applicant under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 6 Rules 2 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Sections 17 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act for striking of pleadings in the written statement has been dismissed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 4. A perusal of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 6 Rules 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Sections 17 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act demonstrates that it was prayed therein that the Court may pass an order striking off specific pleadings that respondent cancelled/revoked lease of deed dated 07.10.2016; pass an order striking of specific pleadings and or insinuation thereof that deed of lease dated 07.10.2016 is grasped by misrepresentation from the defendant is illegal, null and void and the same is result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence; pass an order striking any pleadings in the written statement which were unnecessary, scandalous, vexatious and which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit. 3 5. The application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court inter alia, returning the following findings:- “Hence, it is settled that the power to struck out the pleadings is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection. In the case at hand, on bare perusal of pleadings in W.S., I find that neither the same are vexatious or scandalous nor intent to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit. There are questions raised by the defendant with regards to the legal and valid execution of the lease deed and subsequently to the alleged revocation of the lease deed. These are factual and legal question which can be determined only after evidence is led by both the sides. Even if earlier admissions are being withdrawn by way of pleadings, the same cannot be said to be abuse of process of court. Therefore, the present application under Order 6 Rule 16 as filed by the plaintiff/applicant is not maintainable and is dismissed. Now, be put up for framing of issues on 28.09.2019.” 6. The documents appended with the petition demonstrate that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the following effect:- “Suit for declaration to the effect that the Plaintiff is the Lease Holder of the property of defendant as per Schedule 'A' comprised in Khata No. 82, Khatauni No.237 to 242, Khasra nos. 1233, 1234, 1235 situated at Mahal Dharamkot, Mauza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District-Kangra, H.P. as per Jamabandi for the year 2009-10 and the Registered Lease Deed dated 7-10- 2016 is enforceable in law, along with, Suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the 4 Defendant not to create any charge, trespass, encumber, use for personal gain or to induct any third person as tenant or not and further to cease any and all construction/renovation work in respect to the property as mentioned in Schedule "A", along with, Suit for possession with a prayer for Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant to hand over the possession of the property as per schedule "A" without any further delay, along with Suit for Specific Performance Contract directing the Defendant to restore the suit property to its original construction till 20.12.2016 (i.e., till the time of stopping of the construction work) while removing any and all impediments to construction and thereafter, resume construction of additional floors as per the proposed plan and hand over the possession of additional floors immediately upon completion, along with, Compensation directing the Defendant to indemnify the financial losses which the Plaintiff will suffer on account of waste and the difference in market price for construction alongside a compensation of Rs. 6,27,250/-(Rupees six lacs twenty seven thousand two fifty)per month less the Defendant's rent starting March 2017 until completion and handing over of the structure respects as business loss incurred on account of delay and further a sum of Rs. 500,000 (Rupees Five Lacs) on account of Damages caused to the Plaintiff's business reputation and image by decreeing the suit.” 7. In the written statement, the defendant has taken the defence that the defendant was the owner in possession of the suit land and plaintiff was not in possession thereof. Defendant vide notice dated 23.12.2016 had communicated to the plaintiff his decision to rescind the alleged lease deed. The suit was false and vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the same was 5 filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive to harass and harm the defendant. 8. Order 6 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trail of the suit, or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. Similarly, Sections 17 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, inter alia, provides that an admission is a statement oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned and that facts admitted need not be proved. 10. Now, in terms of the application which stands dismissed by the learned Trial Court, the pleadings were scandalous, vexatious defeated by admission to the contrary and void of any material facts and particular and the only purpose of the pleadings is to prejudice embarrass and delay the trial. 6 However, this Court does not concur with the averments raised in the application. The defendant in the written statement has taken a defence which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be unnecessary or scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. This Court fails to understand as to how the defence taken by the defendant tends to prejudice embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or is otherwise abuse of the process of the law. This Court is not suggesting that the defence taken by the written statement is meritorious, because, it is for the defendant to prove the stand taken therein by leading cogent evidence and the plaintiff has a right to prove to the contrary. However, the contents of the written statement are not such so as to shake the judicial conscience of any Court and thus compel that Court to strike out pleadings in terms of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16. 11. In this backdrop, the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application can also not be questioned, because, obviously, the power to strike out pleading is extra ordinary in nature and has to be exercised with extreme care caution and circumspection as has been held by the learned Trial Court. 7 12. In the present case, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to have had struck out the pleading, because, the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement was not falling within the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code or any provisions mentioned in the application. 13. In the light above observation, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 25, 2025 (Vinod)