JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for striking out the offensive pleadings and deserves to be expedited. The application was filed on 4.1.2013 and has remained pending. The order sheet has been reproduced in the petition. A reading of the zimni orders passed on the order sheet discloses that the reply to the application was filed without delay on 8.1.2013 and after that, the matter has kept lingering on either on joint requests made for adjournment, or requests of the plaintiff for adjournment of the case, or were dates when arguments were not heard or when both the counsel were not prepared and ready for arguments, e.g., on 29.11.2013 or due to non-availability of counsel etc. and the position has remained so till the present with no decision rendered on the interlocutory application. 2. A direction is sought from this Court to expedite the matter before the trial Court at Faridkot to decide the application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC in a time bound manner so that the trial can proceed after decision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to two paragraphs of the plaint which he submits should be struck off as they fall within the teeth of Order 6 Rule 16(A) inasmuch as they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and are in the abuse of the process of the Court and not required to decide the dispute. The offending parts of the plaint as perceived by the petitioner are reproduced below : - “That the death of both the said persons i.e. the father of the plaintiff no.1 to 3 and the defendant no.1 and their mother Smt.Gurbachan Kaur was in mysterious circumstances and now in view of the latest development of the bitterness of relationship amongst the parties to this lis and the evil, full of greed and ulterior motives designs and moves of the defendants, the plaintiffs are also making the enquiries to reach at a logical conclusion on the above aspects, but at this stage without any quoting, the further details are being restricted..... That as the defendant no.2 is in dominating position and he may also obtain any document, right or authority from the defendant no.1 his wife to commit any sort of the mischief etc. relating to the suit land, he has been arrayed as co-defendant.....” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It is contended that when the plaintiff talks about “mysterious circumstances” in the plaint and connects it with “latest development of the bitterness of relationship amongst the parties to this lis” and “the evil, full of greed” and “ulterior motives designs” and “moves of the defendants”, and of not divulging details leaving an impression in the mind that they are unspeakable, or that defendant No.2 who is the husband of the petitioner defendant No.1, being in a dominating position may obtain any document, right or authority from defendant No.1 for committing any sort of mischief etc. and for which reason he has been purposely arrayed as co-defendant though has no personal right in the suit property is claimed against him as he can claim only through his wife; he is trying to prejudice the mind of the court and therefore such pleadings deserve to be ordered to be deleted before issues are framed and the parties put to trial on them. 6. I feel that there may be some over-reaction on the part of defendant No.1 emanating from her soured relations with her siblings warring with each other in Court locked in a property dispute. Notwithstanding that, reference to “mysterious circumstances” and use of words such as “evil”, “full of greed” and “ulterior motives designs” and “moves of the defendants” etc. are really non-essential and immaterial as they may have no real bearing on the controversy or prayers made in the suit filed for declaration disputing shares in the family property etc. 7. The golden rule of pleadings is that only such facts should be pleaded as can be proved by evidence. The Code prescribes in Order 6 Rule 2 that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. The Code prescribes in Order 6 Rule 2 that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. However, there is a pernicious tendency growing among counsel to apply superfluous gloss, use bombastic words, hyperbole and exaggeration in composing plaints, applications and petitions which do not qualify stricto sensu as pleadings. But neither parties nor the court should over react and waste energy on trifling matters unless the words and expressions are aimed at hitting below the belt then such pleadings deserve to be discouraged and parties confined to facts of their respective cases. 8. Instead of ordering the trial court to decide the application in a time bound manner as suggested and wasting the further time of two courts and for this Court to only to call upon the respondents to explain what was meant by otiose words and therefore after having heard the matter for a few minutes in order to understand the case, I feel that no useful purpose will be served in calling upon the plaintiffs to cling to their pleadings in paragraphs 2 and 8 of the plaint which have no material bearing on the prayers made which are purely of a civil nature relating to rights in property. I would only say that such pleadings will have no effect or bearing on the suit or on its outcome. 9. In view of this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not press the application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC before the trial Court only to waste its time further and delay the proceedings and sidetrack the main case on an interlocutory application. The suit would then proceed on its merits without reference to the superfluous words as above contained in paragraphs 2 and 8 of the plaint. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————