1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.442 of 2008 (Ashok s/o Kartarsingh Arora v. Shri Krishna s/o Vishwanath Adgulwar) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for Petitioner. Adv. Shri M.M. Deshmukh, holding for Adv. Shri V.R. Choudhari, for Respondent. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 28th July, 2008 1. By this petition, the petitioner/defendant takes exception to the order below his application Exhibit 11 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected the application observing that there was nothing scandalous or irrelevant in the allegations which were sought to be struck off under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The allegations to which the petitioner/defendant takes exception were read over to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. They appear in para 4 of the plaint and read as under : “... That the defendant is running his business of Hotel And Bar in the name and Style as “PRIENCE RESTARENT AND BAR' since 2 the year 1982. However the defendant has obtained the license falsely showing the suit premises for the aforesaid business for the “PRIENCE BAR AND RESTAURANT” without taking the no objection certificate from the plaintiff. That similarly the defendant has also not obtained the consent of the plaintiff for running the business of Bar. The suit property was given on rent for the business of running Hotel and not for running the business of Bar. That the defendant also misleaded the Government Authorities and obtained the license of Bar. That as the defendant has breached the terms and conditions of the agreement are also liable to vacate the suit premises.” It is not clear as to how these allegations could be called scandalous, irrelevant or not necessary for deciding lis between the parties. It is not necessary to go into the question of their correctness or truth and that will be decided at the trial. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Iqbal and others v. Hakumuddin and others, reported at (2005) 13 SCC 754, to support his contention that even irrelevant/unnecessary averments in the pleadings need to be struck off. The facts in that case were altogether different and the pleas, which were found to be necessary, were also different. A reference was made to religious practices, doctrines and some allegations were levelled against priestly class. Such is not the present case. In a dispute between a landlord and a tenant, the pleas, which have been extracted above, could not be called scandalous or irrelevant and, therefore, no case has been made out for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In fact filing 3 of this writ petition amounts to abuse of process of this Court and, therefore, it would attract costs of Rs.5,000/-. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner to pay the costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) to the respondent for being unnecessarily dragged to this Court. JUDGE Lanjewar