JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 788/1993 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Neyyattinkara, who are aggrieved by the order in I.A. No. 3633/2014 dated 09.06.2015, have preferred this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the contesting 27th defendant, since other parties not arrayed in this Original Petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners filed petition under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure to strike down the contentions in the written statement filed by the 27th defendant, whereby 27th defendant claimed right over the plaint schedule property as per settlement deed No. 1528/1997 and also claimed leasehold right over 50 cent forming part of the plaint schedule items, in continuation of enjoyment of the said right by his father Keshava Panicker. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the court below failed to note that defendants 22, 23 and 25, litigating under the same title, raised contentions of similar nature as raised by the 27th defendant and was found against, as per Ext.P4, the order in O.A. No. 506/89 dated 06.03.1992, the Land Tribunal. It was found by the Land Tribunal that Parvathy, Dakshayani, Viswambharan and Ramachandran were not entitled to get fixity of tenure. Therefore, the 27th defendant, who is claiming right under the same title and was declared ex-parte earlier, cannot raise the said plea in the written statement subsequently filed and the same is liable to be struck down by invoking power under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. While repelling this contention, the learned counsel for the 27th defendant submitted that the total extent of plaint schedule property is 10 acre of land and out of the same, 27th defendant put up independent claim of tenancy in respect of 50 cent alone and the said property is not the property claimed by Parvathy, Dakshayani and others as per O.A. No. 506/1989. Therefore, the prayer canvassed to strike down the pleadings of the 27th defendant cannot be allowed and therefore the court below rightly negatived the said contention. Here the total extent of plaint A schedule property is 10 acre, out of which Parvathy, Dakshayani and others claimed leasehold right in respect of 6.50 acres. Therefore, the prayer canvassed to strike down the pleadings of the 27th defendant cannot be allowed and therefore the court below rightly negatived the said contention. Here the total extent of plaint A schedule property is 10 acre, out of which Parvathy, Dakshayani and others claimed leasehold right in respect of 6.50 acres. The same was found against. However, it could not be held that 50 cent out of 10 acres, over which the 27th defendant asserts leasehold right, may not be the same portion of the property. 4. In such view of the matter, the legal issue is; what are the parameters to be borne in mind while striking down pleadings? 5. In this connection, I am inclined to extract Rule 16 of Order 6 as under: “16. 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. (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarass or delay the fair trial of the suit. (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.” So it is abundantly clear that the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, strike down or amend the pleadings if the pleadings come under the category of (a) to (c) referred above. 6. In this connection, I am inclined to refer an earlier decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Bhikaji Kesho Joshi and Another vs. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani and Others, AIR 1955 SC 610 : 1955 KHC 399. In the said decision, while interpreting scope of this provision it was held that under this rule, court can strike out the pleadings which are vague or unnecessary. In another decision reported in Roop Lal Sathi vs. Nachhattar Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1559 the Apex Court held that the power to strike out or pleadings of his adversary, cannot be exercised by the court unless the said pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous or tending to prejudice, embarass or delay a fair trial. 7. In another decision reported in Roop Lal Sathi vs. Nachhattar Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1559 the Apex Court held that the power to strike out or pleadings of his adversary, cannot be exercised by the court unless the said pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous or tending to prejudice, embarass or delay a fair trial. 7. Thus the parameters to be borne in mind before passing an order to strike down the pleadings are: (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, as provided under Rule 16 of Order 6 and not otherwise. To put it differently, valid contentions raised by the defendant in his written statement which would require adjudication cannot be struck down under the Rule 16 of Order 6. 8. In the case on hand, the 27th defendant filed written statement claiming tenancy right in respect of 50 cent of property out of 10 acres. The said plea cannot be considered as one covered by Rule 16 (a) to (c) of Order 6 of C.P.C. so as to strike down the same. 9. Therefore, I am of the view that the prayer canvassed by the petitioner cannot sustain. Since the order of the learned Munsiff impugned herein does not suffer from any perversity or arbitrariness, the Original Petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.