G.C. Garg, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated May 3, 1991 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) PARTIES to this litigation are brothers and sisters. The dispute in the main is about the estate left behind by Basant Kaur, their mother. Plaintiff Charanjit Singh and four others filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners to the extent of 1/7th share each in House No. 110, Sector 10 -A, Chandigarh, owned by Basant Kaur, being sons and daughters. They also prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from selling and alienating or creating charge in any manner. They also prayed for certain other reliefs as fully detailed in the suit. Defendant No. 1 who was served with a notice of the suit, moved an application under Order 6, Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deletion and amendment of unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, prejudicial and embarrassing portions, passages, sentences and words from the plaint, details whereof had been mentioned in the application. Plaintiffs filed reply thereto and pressed the prayer made. Trial Court by order dated May 3, 1991 dismissed the application by observing "the plaintiffs have narrated the facts in the plaint which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present case and it relates to the conduct of the parties. Hence, I am of the view that there is no substance in the application and the same stands dismissed." Aggrieved by this order, defendant No. 1 has filed the present revision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner read out various portions of the plaint appearing in paras 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. It was conceded that the Court can at any stage of the proceedings, order deletion of any portion of 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 of which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. According to the learned counsel, the passages the deletion of which was sought by defendant No. 1, were wholly unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious and were only meant to prejudice the fair trial of the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the passages objected to by defendant No. 1 were nothing but a narration of fact and no interference therewith was called for.;