Smt. Seema Sharma vs Smt. Shanti Devi

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. Petitioner is aggrieved by order Annexure P/1 passed in Civil Suit No. 49A/2013 dated 27.08.2013, whereby the petitioner''s application preferred under Order 6 Rule 16 read with section 151 C.P.C. was rejected by the Court below. By filing the said application Annexure P/4, it is contended that in the application there are various paragraphs (mentioned in para 2 of the said application) which are unnecessary, scandalous and frivolous in nature and therefore, same needs to be deleted. The Court below rejected the same and opined that although some additional pleadings are there in the plaint, but if the plaint is read in entirety, it will be clear that no prejudice is caused to the other side. The Court below opined that plaintiff has not stated any vexatious or frivolous allegation which may prejudice the other side. It is further opined that this kind of averments will not cause any delay in the proceedings. Thus, application was rejected.

By relying on Smt. Meera Asthana Vs. Rajendranath Asthana, and Iqbal and Others Vs. His Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohamed Burhanuddin Saheb, Shri Chandil submits that the order of the Court below is vulnerable and liable to be set aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The petitioner''s application (Annexure P/4) is rejected by the Court below by a detailed and reasoned order. The scope of interference under article 227 of the Constitution is well defined and limited. The basic purpose for exercising this jurisdiction is to keep the Court below within the bound of its authority. It is not required to be used for correcting the error of facts or law. If the order impugned is passed without authority of law, suffers from any palpable perversity or manifest procedural impropriety, interference can be made. Interference cannot be made as an appellate Court by reweighing the entire material. Another view is possible, is also not a ground for interference. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has assigned plausible reasons in the impugned order. As held in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, , no ingredients are available in this petition which warrants interference. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, no interference is warranted. Petition is dismissed.