Blog

Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Order VI Rule 16 CPC permits the court, at any stage of the proceedings to strike out any matter in the pleading which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or prejudicial or otherwise appears to be an abuse of the process of the court and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Justice Asha Menon in the case of DR. SANJIV BANSAL vs. DR. MANISH BANSAL [CS(OS) 649/2021] on 15.02.2022.

The facts of the case are that the defendant instituted a suit impleading RG Scientific Enterprises Limited as defendant. The said suit was filed for perpetual injunction and declaration that the alleged Will and Testament, purportedly executed by Dr. Bhim Sen Bansal was not genuine and the same had been made in suspicious circumstances. The plaintiff herein claimed that his father, late Dr. B.S. Bansal had bequeathed his estate through a registered Will to him.

Therefore, the question before Court was as to whether the sentences as pointed out in the plaint and stated to have been incorporated in the plaint filed by the defendant are defamatory and the supply of the copies of the plaint to a third party who is not a family member in a case filed by the defendant to determine inter se rights of the family members in respect of the estate of their late father would amount to publication and circulation.

The plaintiff’s counsel submitted defendant was fully aware of the plaintiff having painstakingly built his reputation then also he made an unacceptable and false allegations in the plaint, knowing fully well that the plaint would also reach the hands of the management and employees of M/s RG Scientific Enterprises Limited and its recent investors. Thus, plaintiff had been defamed. It was further submitted that the suit was maintainable as the plaintiff was entitled to claim damages for injury to his reputation as the right to reputation is envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent’s counsel submitted that one of the reliefs sought by plaintiff is a direction to the defendant to withdraw the so called false and wrong allegations made in plaint. Such a prayer would be silencing the defendant in his suit and to ask the defendant to withdraw those pleas would amount to contempt of court.

According to the facts and circumstances, the Court held that scandalous pleadings can be struck off by the court under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC and therefore, the relief sought cannot be an act of contempt of court.

The Court observed that “Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Order VI Rule 16 CPC permits the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to strike out any matter in the pleading which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or prejudicial or otherwise appears to be an abuse of the process of the court.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman