Order Sanjeev Kumar, J.—Despite service, the respondent has not appeared and is, therefore, set ex-parte. This is a petition filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, (now Article 227 of the Constitution of India), for challenging the Order dated 30th June, 2017 passed by the court of City Munsiff, Srinagar (“the trial court”) in a suit for declaration and injunction titled Zaffar Hussain Beigh vs. Masarat Nazir Shah. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant to the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner and respondent are divorced wife and husband. The respondent filed a suit for declaration, declaring Sale Deed executed on 18th April, 2007 and registered on 23rd April, 2007 with respect to the land comprised in Khasra No. 832 of Estate Baghat Barzullah, Sanat Nagar as Benami Transaction. The respondent also sought a declaration from the court to declare the petitioner herein as Benamdar of the respondent. In the suit, which was presented before the trial court, apart from laying foundation for seeking decree of declaration and perpetual injunction, the respondent also levelled allegations linking the petitioner with a person namely Mir Javid Jaffar, the then Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner was having illicit relations with the aforesaid person and had been exchanging obscene material with him. The petitioner filed the written statement and also moved an application in terms of Order 6 Rule 16 seeking to strike out the unnecessary and scandalous allegations made in the plaint. The application was contested by the respondent and the trial court after considering the matter in terms of order impugned rejected the application. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that the trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 and the underlying object of the said provision. It is submitted that for determining the issues relevant to the Benami transaction, which is, at the core of the controversy raised in the suit, there was hardly any necessity to indulge in character assassination of the petitioner. The trial court, it is contended, was under a duty to give effect to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 and strike out the pleadings, which, on the face of it, were scandalous and totally unnecessary. 3. The trial court, it is contended, was under a duty to give effect to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 and strike out the pleadings, which, on the face of it, were scandalous and totally unnecessary. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, it is necessary to first set out the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 here 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 suit, or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.] 4. From the perusal of the provision aforesaid, it is clear that the underlying object of Order 6 Rule 16 is to ensure that every party to a suit should present his pleadings in an intelligible form without causing embarrassment to his adversary. The Supreme Court in the case of Sathi Vijay Kumar vs. Tota Singh and Ors. reported in (2006) 13 SCC 353 in paragraphs 27, 28,29 and 30 held as under; “…27. The above provision empowers a court to strike out any pleading if it is necessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or tends to prejudice embarrass or delay fair trial of the suit or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The underlying object of the Rule is to ensure that every party to a suit should present his pleading in an intelligible form without causing embarrassment to his adversary. 28. Bare reading of Rule 16 Order 6 makes it clear that the court may order striking off of pleadings in the following circumstances: (a) where such pleading is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (b) where such pleading tends to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the suit; or (c) where such pleading is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. 29. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol. 9, Para 38), it has been stated. “Certain acts of a lesser nature may also constitute an abuse of process as, for instance, initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona fides or which are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. 29. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol. 9, Para 38), it has been stated. “Certain acts of a lesser nature may also constitute an abuse of process as, for instance, initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona fides or which are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. In such cases the court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting the taking of further proceedings without leave. Where the court, by exercising its statutory powers, its powers under rules of court, or its inherent jurisdiction, can give an adequate remedy, it will not in general punish the abuse as a contempt of court. On the other hand, where an irregularity or misuse of process amounts to an offence against justice, extending its influence beyond the parties to the action, it may be punished as a contempt.” 30. In supreme Court Practice, 1995, p. 344 (Sweet and Maxwell), it has been observed: “This term connotes that the process of the court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will, in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation… The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose, considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material.” 5. Similarly, in the case of Abdul Razak Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle reported in (2010) 2 SCC 432 held that since the exercise of extraordinary power under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC to strike out a pleading has serious adverse impact on the rights of the party concerned, the power to do so has to be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection. Normally, the Court cannot direct or dictate the parties as to what should be their pleading and how they should prepare their pleadings. If the parties do not violate any statutory provision, they have the freedom to make appropriate averments and raise arguable issues…” 6. Normally, the Court cannot direct or dictate the parties as to what should be their pleading and how they should prepare their pleadings. If the parties do not violate any statutory provision, they have the freedom to make appropriate averments and raise arguable issues…” 6. Viewed in the light of the legal position alluded hereinabove, it is clear that the allegations of character assassination made by the respondent in in the suit for declaration based on Benami Transaction were not only uncalled for, but were totally scandalous having been made with clear intention to embarrass the petitioner. The allegations have been made with least sense of responsibility and the petitioner has been linked to a stranger by levelling their relationship as illicit. The foundational facts, which are required to be proved for seeking declaration of a transaction as Benami, are entirely different. The character assassination of the party, who is claimed to be the Benamidar of the property are totally foreign and unnecessary. From the reading of the plaint as a whole, it becomes abundantly clear that the respondent has made reckless allegations of the character assassination of the petitioner only with an intention to embarrass her and to prejudice the fair trial of the suit. In the given facts and circumstances, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 are clearly attracted. Interestingly, the trial has agreed with the submissions of the petitioner, and has, on facts found that the respondent has levelled the allegation of immorality against the petitioner in paragraph-2 of the plaint and has alleged illicit relationship of the petitioner with one Chief Engineer. The trial court, however, has come to the conclusion that the allegations have been made by the respondent in paragraph-2 only with a view to demonstrate that there had been breach of trust of respondent by the petitioner and, therefore, a suit for declaration. The view taken by the trial court is totally off the mark and is not sustainable in law. For seeking a declaration with regard to a transaction of sale as a Benami Transaction, there is no necessity to plead and prove a breach of trust. The view taken by the trial court is totally off the mark and is not sustainable in law. For seeking a declaration with regard to a transaction of sale as a Benami Transaction, there is no necessity to plead and prove a breach of trust. It is enough, if the plaintiff seeking declaration pleads and proves that the property, which stands in the name of defendant, was purchased by the plaintiff exclusively by spending his own money and that it was intended to be the property of the plaintiff for all practical purposes. 7. Be that as it is, the fact remains in a suit seeking declaration of a transaction as Benami, there is hardly any necessity to make allegations of immorality against the defendant nor is there any requirement to indulge in character assassination of the adversary. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise allegations of character assassination against his adversary only with a view to embarrass him/her and to prejudice the fair trial. In the instant case, the intention in making allegations in paragraph-2 is quite evident and the allegations made have no connection with the controversy involved in the suit. Accordingly, I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that instant case is a fit case for showing indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the object underlying Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The impugned order has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, as the allegations of immorality and illicit relationship between the petitioner and one Chief Engineer have been unnecessarily made, subject matter of the suit. The suit for seeking a declaration and perpetual on account of a Benami Transaction does not require adjudication of such allegation. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The allegations pertaining to immorality and character assassination of the petitioner made in paragraph-2 are, therefore, struck out. 9. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 10. Registry to transmit back the record of the trial court immediately.