R. C. LAHOTI, J. ( 1 ) OVER a, petty matter, the petitioner, defendant-wife, in a matrimonial proceedings has been required to knock the doors of this Court for the second time. The controversy catching the attention of the trial Court as well as this Court for the moment arises out of applications under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. and Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. filed respectively by the defendant and the plaintiff. Earlier when the wife-petitioner had come up to this Court in C. R. No. 209/92, her application under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. calling for rejection of the plaint had been rejected by the trial Court directing her to file the written-statement. Applications seeking amendment of the plaint were also pending. This Court had directed:-". . . . . . . THE revision is allowed, the impugned order rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. is set aside. Instead the trial Court is directed to take up the plaintiff / non-petitioner's application under Order 6, Rule 17 as also the defendant/petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. for consideration. In the event of the trial Court rejecting the application for amendment, the defendant's application under Order 7, Rule 11 shall be taken up for consideration on merits without insisting on the necessity of filing of the written statement for consideration of those pleas. In the event of the plaintiff / non-petitioner's application for amendment being allowed, the trial Court shall examine afresh if the plea under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C. P. C. is available to the defendant / wife and whether it would be appropriate to reject the plaint in part. "the controversy could have been finally disposed of by this Court even on that day but for the sole consideration of judicial propriety that ordinarily this Court would not hear and dispose of a matter on a point on which the Court below did not have had an opportunity of applying its mind for not having been invited to do so by the parties. ( 2 ) IT appears that the husband non-petitioner filed a suit for annulment of his marriage with the petitioner by a decree of nullity on the ground that his consent to the marriage was obtained by playing fraud. ( 2 ) IT appears that the husband non-petitioner filed a suit for annulment of his marriage with the petitioner by a decree of nullity on the ground that his consent to the marriage was obtained by playing fraud. The wife petitioner moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. seeking rejection of the plaint that on the statement of case as made in the plaint itself, the petition appeared to have been presented more than one year after the fraud had been discovered, barring the maintainability of the petition for annulment on account of statutory bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. This application made the non-petitioner husband wiser and he moved the applications seeking amendment of the plaint so as to pray for decree of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce u/s. 13 of the Act in the alternative. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the order dated 26-11-1992, the trial Court took up the hearing on the applications filed by both the parties and formed an opinion that the amendment proposed by the husband non-petitioner deserved to be allowed and in view of the amendment having been allowed, the plaint had ceased to be liable to be rejected in spite of the trial Court forming an opinion vide para 13 of its impugned order that the relief of annulment of marriage u/s. 12 of the Act was not available to the husband non-petitioner. ( 4 ) IN so far as the amendment proposed by the husband non-petitioner, in the capacity of the plaintiff before the trial Court is concerned, there can hardly be any objection either on question of principle or on question of propriety in its being allowed. The suit is at its preliminary stage. The two reliefs can be sought for in the alternative depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the husband could have filed a fresh suit for dissolution of marriage on the date of moving the application for amendment, there is no reason to deny him the same prayer being incorporated in the pending proceedings. The impugned order of the trial Court in so far as it permits amendment of the plaint imposing costs of Rs. 200/- does not call for any interference and the same is maintained. The impugned order of the trial Court in so far as it permits amendment of the plaint imposing costs of Rs. 200/- does not call for any interference and the same is maintained. ( 5 ) THE real question posing problem is one arising out of the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. filed by the wife petitioner. Whether the plaint deserves to be rejected? Whether it can be rejected in part? ( 6 ) IF only the plaintiff would have sought for the relief of annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity, the application filed by the wife petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint was sure to be allowed in as much as the case would have been clearly covered by clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C. P. C. , the plaint not disclosing a cause of action and also being barred by law from the statement made in the plaint itself. However, the position has changed. Now, in view of the amendment in the plaint, there are two reliefs prayed for in the alternative; one of which is barred by an express provision of law while the other has to be tried on merits. ( 7 ) REJECTION of plaint in part is not contemplated. A Division Bench of this Court in Shankarrao Balaji v. Shambihari, AIR 1951 Nag 419 was faced with a situation where the plaint was liable to be rejected as against some of the defendants but not as against the rest. In spite of opportunity having been afforded by the High Court to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had refused to amend the plaint. The Division Bench concluded by holding:-"it is clearly not possible to reject a plaint which discloses a cause of action against certain defts. and none against the rest. The only feasible course in such a case is to discharge the deft, against whom no cause of action is disclosed and have his name struck off from the plaint. " ( 8 ) A Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had occasion to deal with a similar situation in Balwant Singh v. State Bank of India, AIR 1976 P and H 316. " ( 8 ) A Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had occasion to deal with a similar situation in Balwant Singh v. State Bank of India, AIR 1976 P and H 316. P. C. Jain, J. speaking for himself and S. S. Sandhawalia, J. held:-"a plaint which does not disclose a cause of action in respect of the part of the claim against some of the defendants, cannot be rejected as a whole. " "the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (a) would be attracted only in a case where by reason of the plea that a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the plaintiff is to be wholly non-suited but this rule would have no applicability to cases where a plaint discloses a cause of action in respect of the part of the claim against some of the defendants, as in that event the names of the defendants against whom there is no cause of action or the suit is barred by law, have to be struck off and the suit has to proceed against the remaining defendants". A. D. Koshal, J. agreeing with the other two Judges, added:-"the very, idea of a plaint being rejected in part' is repugnant to the provisions of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaint in a suit is the document evidencing the suit and not the suit itself and can, therefore, either be rejected or retained which, in other words, merely means that it can either be thrown out or proceeded with. It cannot be torn up in two parts, one of which is discarded and the other entertained. This is clearly deducible from the language of the Rule. Expressions like 'in its entirety' or 'in part' are thus wholly inept in relation to the rejection of the plaint. It cannot be torn up in two parts, one of which is discarded and the other entertained. This is clearly deducible from the language of the Rule. Expressions like 'in its entirety' or 'in part' are thus wholly inept in relation to the rejection of the plaint. " ( 9 ) IN the opinion of this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appropriate provision to which resort must be had is Order 6, Rule 16, C. P. C. which reads as under:-"striking out pleadings.- the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading- (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the of the suit, or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. "( 10 ) ON the trial Court forming an opinion that on the facts stated in the pleadings, the relief under Section 12 of the Act was not available to the plaintiff, the relief clause and other plaint averments relatable to Section 12 of the Act were not only unnecessary but were sure to embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit and also amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. None of those averments could have been tried. Their presence in the plaint would scandalise the defendant and might prejudice the mind of the reader as well. The trial Court should afford the plaintiff an opportunity of striking out by amendment so much part of the plaint, including the relief clause, which is relatable to Section 12 of the Act, attracting applicability of Order 6, Rule 16, C. P. C. and in the event of the plaintiff failing to comply with the order of the Court, the Court should not hesitate to exercise the power by itself and proceed to strike out so much of the plaint averments as would, in its opinion, amount to being unnecessary, scandalous, frivilous or vexatious or delaying the trial or amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. ( 11 ) THE revision is partly allowed and stands disposed of in the terms indicate hereinabove though without any order as to the costs. Order accordingly. .