LexABDUL RAZAK (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus MANGESH RAJARAM WAGLE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 899 ABDUL RAZAK (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. v. MANGESH RAJARAM WAGLE AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2010) JANUARY 07, 2010 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: A B Or. 6, r. 16 - Additional written statement filed by c appellants, the LRs of deceased defendant - Taken on record without any objection from plaintiffs-respondents - Respondents also did not object to framing of additional issues and led evidence in support of their case - Belated application filed by respondents for striking out additional D written statement - Effect of - Held: The application of respondents was frivolous and not maintainable - Respondents filed application for striking out the additional written statement after a long time gap without any explanation - The application was filed by respondents after almost one E year of completion of their evidence - In absence of any contrary evidence, it can be reasonably and legitimately presumed that respondents must have produced their evidence keeping in view the pleadings contained in the additional written statement. Or. 6, r. 16 - Power of Court to strike out pleadings - When exercisable - Held: Such power can be exercised in either of the three eventualities i.e., where the pleadings are considered by the court unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; F or where the court is satisfied that the pleadin'gs tend to G prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise considered as an abuse of the court - Since striking out pleadings has serious adverse impact on the 899 H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 1 S.C.R. A rights of the concerned party, the power to do so has to be exercised with great care and circumspection. Or.6, r.16 and Or.22, r.4 - Additional written statement fifed by appellants, after their impleadment as LRs of deceased defendant - Plea of plaintiffs-respondents that the 8 pleadings contained in the additional written statement were inconsistent with the defence set up by the predecessor-in- interest of appellants in the original written statement and the trial Court was duty bound to discard the same in view of Or.22, r.4 - Tenability of - Held: Not tenable :- Claim made C by the appellants was in no way inconsistent with or derogatory to the defence set up by their predecessor-in- interest - Once the additional written statement filed by appellants was taken on record without any objection by plaintiffs-respondents, who also led their evidence keeping in D view the pleadings of the additional written statement, the High . Court was not at all justified in allowing the application filed for striking off the additional written statement and that too without even adverting to Or. 6, r. 16 and without considering whether respondents were able to make out a case for E exercise of power by the Court under that provision. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Exercise of power under - Limitations of certiorari jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction - On facts, while deciding the writ F petition filed by respondents and granting relief to them, the High Court erroneously did not keep in mind the guiding principles laid down for exercise of power under Articles ·226 or 227 of the Constitution and adjudicated upon the writ petition, as if it was exercising appellate jurisdiction. G High Courts - Exercise of jurisdiction - High Courts to refrain from deciding writ petitions as if adjudicating appeals against orders of lower courts or other judicial/quasi judicial bodies/authorities. H Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed suit for declaration that ABDUL RAZAK (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. v. 901 MANGESH RAJARAM WAGLE they were lawful tenants of the suit premises, and A alternatively, for recovery of possession of the suit premises, which they alleged was forcibly occupied by respondent no.3. The premises in question is situated in the State of Goa. Respondent no.3-defendant not only denied the B averments contained in the plaint that he had illegally taken possession of the suit premises, but also pleaded that he was doing business of distribution of liquor in the suit premises on the basis of permission accorded by 'A', C the other defendant, and further that the competent authority had granted him excise licence after being satisfied that the suit premises were suitable for doing business in liquor. 'A' f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.