1 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP No. 1270 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 03 of 2024 Reserved on: 24.03.2026 Decided on: 29.04.2026 ________________________________________________ Keshav Dutt Shreedhar ....Applicant/plaintiff Versus Nishant Sharma …Non-applicant/defendant _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the applicant : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the non-applicant: Mr. Nishant Sharma, in person (through VC). Sushil Kukreja, Judge This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking out appropriate paragraphs in the written statement filed by the non-applicant/defendant. As per the applicant, he has filed the present suit for damages on account of defamatory E-mails published by the non- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) applicant, the details of which have been given in the plaint. The defence available to the defendant under Law of Torts relating to defamation, happens to be justification by truthfulness of the defamatory statement, absolute privilege and qualified privilege and besides this, there is no other defence available. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, the points of determination shall revolve around aforesaid issues only, as to whether the statement is defamatory or whether the defendant has spoken the truth or whether he is protected by absolute privilege or qualified privilege. However, the perusal of written statement reveals that non-applicant has levelled various allegations which have no relevance whatsoever to the matter in dispute and trial of the suit will go off-tangent if these remain part of the pleadings. Further, paragraphs II(i) to (iii), A to W of preliminary objection of written statement go to show that the non-applicant has made these allegations with respect to filing of FIR at Gurugram and Mc Leodganj and with respect to the proceedings in Criminal Writ Petition No. 14 of 2023, titled Court on its own motion Vs. State of H.P. Non-applicant 3 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) has also made averments with respect to the plaintiff being Director in many companies. Further averment is made as to applicant suffering losses in Himachal Dastak Media Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Similarly, paragraph-7 of the written statement, on merits, again pertains to allegations with respect to alleged criminal conspiracy of applicant with one Sachin Shridhar to sell the shares of the company. Paragraph-10 of written statement contains the allegation with respect to alleged forgery of auditor’s report. Paragraph-11, bullet points No. 3, 4 & 5, contains allegations against the applicant with respect to brokering of deals by the plaintiff and bribing politicians and bureaucrats. Further, allegations have been made against the applicant that he was spiteful against promoters of University, in which, applicant was a partner and that the promoter’s son was an idiot. Allegations have also been made with respect to non-applicant having been a witness to adultery allegedly committed by the applicant. Paragraphs 22 c, d & e have no relevance to the issue at hand. Moreover, the aforesaid allegations have no connection, whatsoever, with the defences available to the non-applicant under law of 4 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) defamation and the same are unnecessary, frivolous and vaxatious. On the basis of these averments, the the applicant had filed the present application for striking out paragraphs II(i) to (iii), A to W of preliminary objections, paragraphs 7, 10 & 11 bullet points 3, 4 & 5 and paragraphs 22 c, d & e of the written statement. 2. Reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the defendant, wherein, it has been submitted that written statement embodies legitimate defence and material averments germane to the subject matter of the suit. It has been further submitted that present application is wholly misconceived, legally untenable and an abuse of the process of law. The averments sought to be struck out are neither unnecessary nor scandalous, but are in fact material and indispensable for a fair and complete adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. It has also been submitted that when on the one hand, applicant’s own documents pertaining to the very same context, facts and proceedings have been permitted to be placed on record, there exists no juristic justification whatsoever to strike out similar 5 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) documents or references placed by the defendant in his written statement. To allow such a course would not only be illogical and discriminatory, but would also mutilate the defendant’s defence and cause grave prejudice. The present application is a transparent attempt by the applicant to suppress material facts and obstruct the truth from being placed before the Court. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of the application has been made. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contended that the defendant had levelled various allegations against the plaintiff in the written statement, which has no relevance whatsoever to the issue involved in the suit and these allegations are unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious, which will prejudice, embarrass and delay the fair trial of the suit and the same deserve to be struck out from the written statement. 4. On the other, the defendant, who appeared in person, contended that there are no allegations made by him in the written statement which are scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or intended to embarrass, harass or cause undue 6 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) delay to the proceedings. He further contended that Power under Order VI, Rule 16 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and cautiously and cannot be invoked merely on the ground that the plaintiff finds pleadings inconvenient or unattractive. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-plaintiff, non-applicant/defendant and also gone through the material available on record. 6. The perusal of the material available on record reveals that the plaintiff had filed a suit for damages against the defendant for causing mental shock to him by e-mail circulated by the defendant. As per the plaintiff, on 30.09.2023 at 2:03 P.M., the defendant sent an E-mail to plaintiff, his wife, defendant’s father and sister, all Directors of Company, by virtue of which, a notice of Board Meeting was sent, which was to be held on the same day, i.e. 30.09.2023 at 2:30 P.M. Again on 06.10.2023 an E-mail was sent by defendant to the plaintiff and other Board of Directors at 02:21 P.M., whereby it was informed that a meeting of the Board of Directors of Shri Chamunda Laboratories and Projects Private Limited was scheduled for 05:00 P.M. on the 7 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) same day i.e., 06.10.2023. In the said email, the defendant levelled certain false allegations with respect to one Shri Sachin Shreedhar and Auditors namely, DJS & Company and that the said Auditors resigned from assignment of M/s Chamunda Laboratories and Projects Private Limited. On the same day i.e., 06.10.2023, vide E-mail sent at 02:26 P.M., he sent the link for holding the said meeting. The plaintiff received the E-mail at 02:21 P.M. on the same date. The defendant was informed that the proposed agenda was a serious one and it required some serious and formal discussion. The defendant was requested by E-mail to convene the meeting of the Board of Directors after giving a minimum 7 days' notice. The said E-mail was sent to him at 04:57 P.M. 7. In continuation to the aforesaid E-mail, another E-mail was sent to defendant by the plaintiff on 06.10.2023 at 07:23 P.M., wherein he was informed that despite the fact that a meeting had been called without giving 7 days' notice as required under law, the plaintiff was on way from Shimla to Chandigarh despite less than 3 hours notice, he stopped 8 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) his car and tried to join the meeting at 05:10 P.M. through the link that had been sent by the defendant. However, as and when the plaintiff tried to join the meeting, the defendant declined to enter him in the zoom meeting, since he was host of the said meeting. The defendant ended that meeting at 05:12 P.M. The defendant was again requested to convene the said meeting after giving 7 days' notice. On 09.10.2023, the defendant sent another E-mail, which was totally false, malicious, without any basis and defamatory. All the E-mails addressed to the plaintiff were accessed by Junior Advocates in the office of plaintiff at Shimla, H.P., namely, Mr. Sameer Thakur, Ms. Shreya Chauhan and Ms. Sneh Bhimta for the purposes of taking follow up action. During the course of accession of mails, present E-mails including the one dated 09.10.2023, was also accessed by these advocates. They were shocked to read the contents of E-mail. The wife of the plaintiff, Smt. Sarita Shreedhar, was also shocked to read the allegations levelled by the defendant in the E-mail, which not only pertaining to the official business, but also with respect to his personal life. Smt. Sarita Shreedhar after reading the 9 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) allegations in the E-mail was shocked and horrified. Smt. Sarita Shreedhar's E-mail account had an automatic filter that forwarded this E-mail to the son of the plaintiff, Shri Akshay Shreedhar. She was so much mentally perturbed that she had no option than to discuss the matter with her sisters and other family members. All of them repeatedly enquired the matter from the plaintiff. Needless to mention that such allegations, made not only with respect to the official business but also with respect to the personal life of the plaintiff, had immense defamatory proportions. According to the plaintiff, the statements made in the E-mail are false, without any basis, malicious and defamatory and the said allegations have lowered the esteem of the plaintiff in the eyes of his Junior Advocates, office staff, his wife, son, family members and all others, who have gone through the contents of the E-mail. It is also apparent that these defamatory words have travelled among general public from person to person. 8. In the light of the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties the question 10 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) that would fall for consideration is as to whether the averments made in paragraphs II(i) to (iii), A to W of preliminary objections, paragraphs 7, 10 & 11 bullet points 3, 4 & 5 and paragraphs 22 c, d & e of the written statement are required to be struck out in exercise of the power conferred on this Court under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 9. Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code provides for striking down the pleadings by the Courts. The same reads as hereunder: “Order 6, Rule 16 of the CPC: 16. Striking out pleadings.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading.-- (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trail of the suit; or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. …………………...” 10. Bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that the court may order striking out pleadings if the same are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the suit or the suit otherwise is an abuse of the process of the Court. The 11 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) underlying object of the rule is to ensure that every party to a suit should present his pleadings in an intelligible form without causing embarrassment to his adversary. 11. Generally, what is to be pleaded, how it is to be pleaded is all within the domain of the party who has drafted and filed petition. Of course when something is specially required to be mentioned therein by the statute, the same has to be complied. Normally, the Court would not direct or dictate the party what should be their pleadings and how should they prepare their pleadings. If there is no violation of statutory provision in making the pleadings, the parties have freedom to make appropriate averments and raise arguable issues. The authority of the Court to strike off the pleadings is therefore circumscribed with the conditions that it would be justified only when it is satisfied that the pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of suit or the suit is an abuse of the process of the Court. Since striking off the pleadings has serious adverse impact on the rights of the 12 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) party concerned, the power to do so has to be exercised with great care and circumspection. 12. The pleadings, which are necessary to establish the case of the party concerned should only be allowed and not which has nothing to do with the case set up by the parties concerned. In order to find out whether pleadings is necessary or not, the entire document of the pleadings has to be read and not a sentence or a word in isolation. To determine the relevancy, one must consider the nature of the suit and whether any relief is sought in respect of the allegations made in the defence. 13. The pleadings, which are scandalous are more serious and have to be struck out before it may cause any damage to someone. The Court has a duty to discharge towards the public and the suitors, in taking care that its records are kept free from irrelevant and scandalous matter. Scandal is calculated to do great and permanent injury to all persons, whom it affects, by making the records of the court the means of perpetuating libellous and malignant slanders. The court, in aid of the public morals, is bound to interfere to 13 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) suppress such indecencies. However, one must always remember that nothing can be scandalous which is relevant. If the facts pleaded are relevant and necessary, no objection on the count of being scandalous can be accepted. 14. In Iqbal & Others Vs. His Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohd. Burhanuddin Saheb, (2005) 13 SCC 759, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “12. ……………….Having regard to the nature of allegations made in the said sub-para, if permitted to remain as a part of written statement, it would permit evidence to be recorded which will be wholly irrelevant. It is open to the defendants to say that Misaq, Barat or Raza are not religious tenets, but quite a different thing to say that the same have been misused or abused by the plaintiff. If they are not part of the religious tenet, that may be proved by adducing relevant evidence. But the fact that the power has been misused by the plaintiff, will not detract from his authority to manage the properties or to act as the trustee of the properties, including the functions to be performed in Masjids, if he, in law, is otherwise entitled to exercise powers of management as a trustee. We, therefore, find justification in the order of the High Court deleting sub-paragraph 7(d) of the written statement, except the last part thereof which we have quoted earlier wherein the defendants have not admitted the claim of the plaintiff that Raza is a religious tenet, an article of faith and demands unquestioned acceptance. We, therefore, uphold the order of the High Court striking out sub-paragraph 7(d) of the written statement except that the last part of the said sub-paragraph shall not be struck out.” 14 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) 15. In Sathi Vijay Kumar Vs. Tota Singh & Others, (2006) 13 SCC 353, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that provision of Order 6, Rule 16 CPC 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 relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “27. The above provision empowers a Court to strike out any pleading if it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tend 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 (vied Davy v. Garrett). 28. Bare reading of Rule 16 of Order VI makes it clear that the Court may order striking off pleadings in the following circumstances; (i) 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 15 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona fides or which are frivolous, vexatious, a 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 adequate 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". 30. In Supreme Court Practice, 1995, p.344 (Sweet & Maxwell), it has been observed; "This term connotes that the process of the court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will, in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material". 16. On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it has to be seen whether pleadings in paragraphs II(i) to (iii), A to W of preliminary objections, paragraphs 7, 10 & 11 bullet points 3, 4 & 5 and paragraphs 22 c, d & e of the written statement comes within 16 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) the mischief of Order VI, Rule 16 CPC so as to justify their striking out. 17. The perusal of paragraphs II(i) to (iii), A to W of preliminary objections, paragraphs 7, 10 & 11 bullet points 3, 4 & 5 and paragraphs 22 c, d & e of the written statement reveals that the defendant has made the allegations against the plaintiff with respect to filing of FIR at Gurugram and McLeodganj and also with respect to the proceedings in Criminal Writ Petition No. 14 of 2023 titled Court on its own motion Vs. State of H.P. The defendant also made averments with respect to the plaintiff being Director of many companies and that the plaintiff having suffered losses in Himachal Dastak Media Pvt. Ltd. etc. Similarly, para-7 of the written statement, on merits, again pertains to allegations with respect to alleged criminal conspiracy of plaintiff with Mr. Sachin Shreedhar to sell the shares of the company. Whereas, para-10 of the written statement contains the allegations with respect to alleged forgery of Auditor’s report. Likewise, para-11, bullet points No. 3, 4 & 5 contains allegations against the plaintiff with respect to brokering of 17 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) deals and bribing politicians and bureaucrats. Further, allegations have been made against the promoters of University, wherein, plaintiff was a partner and that the promoter’s son was an idiot. Allegations have also been made with respect to defendant having been a witness to adultery committed by the plaintiff. 18. Thus, the contents of written statement would go to reveal that these allegations have no relevance to the issues involved in the present suit. The said allegations have no role whatsoever with the defence available to the defendant under the Law of Defamation and the allegations are unnecessary and have merely been made for the purpose of prejudicing the plaintiff. Moreover no relief is sought by the defendant on the ground of these allegations and it is a bounden duty of the Court to prevent any of its processes being used for the purpose of disseminating scandalous and irrelevant allegations. Having regard to the nature of allegations made in these paragraphs, if permitted to remain as a part of written statement, it would permit evidence to be recorded, which would be wholly irrelevant. 18 ( 2026:HHC:14192 ) Therefore, the allegations, as levelled by the defendant in the written statement when considered as a whole and subjected to judicial scrutiny, they make it manifestly clear that these are unnecessary, frivolous, scandalous and vexatious and such pleadings will prejudice, embarrass and delay the fair trial of the suit and would also amount to abuse of process of law which attract the banishment of clauses (a) to (c) of Order 6, Rule 16 of the CPC justifying their striking out from the written statement. 19. Hence, considering the entire facts and circumstances in the light of exposition of law as discussed above and the pleadings of the defendant made in the written statement , in my view, paragraphs II(i) to (iii), A to W of preliminary objections, paragraphs 7, 10 & 11 bullet points 3, 4 & 5 and paragraphs 22 c, d & e of the written statement, deserve to be struck off from the written statement. 20. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, application is allowed. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 29th April, 2026(raman)