ORDER : The plaintiff in O.S.No.2230/2021 has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 15.02.2023 on I.A.Nos.5 to 8. 2. Necessary facts are as follows: Suit is for partition against 68 defendants in respect of 46 items of the property. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that Gummanna was the propositus and he had 3 sons namely Anjinappa, G. Nanjappa and Sanjeevappa, and 2 daughters namely Hanumakka and Sanjeevamma. Plaintiff is the daughter of Sanjeevappa and she stated that the suit properties were ancestral joint family properties; though there had not taken place actual partition amongst the children of Gummanna, the revenue records came to be transferred in the names of 3 sons for convenience. The defendants denied her share in the suit properties and therefore she brought the suit for partition. The defendant No.7 filed written statement denying the plaintiff’s right to claim partition in view of a partition having taken place on 21.09.1953 amongst the sons of Gummanna. In the course of proceedings defendants No.7 and 14 filed applications under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC. If defendant No.7 sought to strike out item Nos.1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 26, 28 to 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 43 and 44 to 46; defendant No.14 sought striking out the properties described as item No.2 to 5, 7, 14, 19 to 23, 35, 38 and 42 of the plaint schedule. Defendants No.7 and 14 also filed 2 more applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to delete from the suit the defendants No.1, 3 to 16, 30, 54 and 67. The defendants No.8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 30, 43, 54 and 67 appeared and filed memo adopting the applications, I.A.Nos.5 to 8 filed by defendants No.7 and 14. In the affidavits filed along with the applications they stated that the plaintiff had brought the suit for partition by suppressing the earlier partition which had taken place on 21.09.1953 amongst the sons of Gummanna and infact after the said partition the plaintiff and other legal heirs of her father sold a property measuring 11 guntas in survey No.53/1 to K V Manjunath on 11.05.2008 and another land measuring 20 guntas in survey No.48 to Chennamma on 11.10.2021. In both sale deeds, the plaintiff has stated about partition dated 21.09.1953. In both sale deeds, the plaintiff has stated about partition dated 21.09.1953. The plaintiff is aware of the earlier partition, yet she has filed a suit in respect of all the properties that belonged to Gummanna. For these reasons the properties mentioned in the applications are not available for partition and the pleadings in respect of those properties are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and hence those properties are to be struck out from the plaint. For the same reason the presence of the defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 to 16, 30, 54 and 67 is not necessary and they are to be deleted. 3. The plaintiff filed statement of objections to the applications. The court below having heard both the sides allowed the applications and aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff has filed this Writ Petition. 4. I heard the arguments of Sri Vijaya Krishna Bhat M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Uday Holla, learned senior counsel for M.D. Basanna for the respondents No.7 and 14. Notice to other respondents was dispensed with. 5. It was the argument of Sri Vijaya Krishna Bhat that the plaintiff has nowhere admitted the partition which the defendants have stated to have taken place in the year 1953. All that she has pleaded is that the revenue records of the properties were mutated to the respective names of the sons of Gummanna for convenience, it doesn’t mean that the partition had taken place. Since according to the plaintiff all the properties described in the plaint are available for partition, merely on the basis of applications filed by the defendants No.7 and 14, some of the properties mentioned in the applications cannot be ordered to be struck out and some of the defendants, deleted. Partition dated 21.09.1953 constitutes defence for defendants No.7 and 14 and burden is on them to prove it. Trial is required to be held for this purpose and at the threshold, deleting some of the properties and defendants entertaining the applications is opposed to law and beyond the scope of Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of AJAY ARJUN SINGH VS. SHARADENDU TIWARI AND ORS. [ (2016) 15 SCC 219 ]. 6. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of AJAY ARJUN SINGH VS. SHARADENDU TIWARI AND ORS. [ (2016) 15 SCC 219 ]. 6. Sri Uday Holla replied that the plaintiff’s brothers had earlier filed a suit for declaration of title stating that a partition had taken place on 21.09.1953. The plaintiff has stated so in the sale deeds executed in favour of Manjunath and Chennamma. If that is so, she is aware of the earlier partition and therefore she cannot bring the suit in respect of the properties which fell to the shares of her uncles. The properties mentioned in the applications were all allotted to plaintiff’s uncles and for this reason inclusion of those properties in the plaint is nothing but scandalous. The trial court has properly applied the mind and there cannot be interference with the impugned order. 7. Having heard both sides, it is to be stated that Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC empowers the court to strike out any part of the pleading at any stage if it appears that any matter is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise abuse of the process of the court. In the case of Ajay Arjun Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has held that whenever a pleading is to be struck out on the ground that it is scandalous, the court must first record its satisfaction that the pleading is scandalous in legal sense and then enquire whether such scandalous allegation is called for or necessary having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the proceeding. It is also held that court has to exercise this authority with circumspection and on the basis of some rational principles. 8. If the impugned order is read, it appears very well that the court below has applied its mind and given proper reasons to allow the applications. The language of Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC is so plain that the court can exercise the power under this provision at any stage; the only requirement is that any matter in the pleading must appear to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. The language of Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC is so plain that the court can exercise the power under this provision at any stage; the only requirement is that any matter in the pleading must appear to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Suppression of a material fact and taking up a plea contrary to it can be considered by the court for exercising power under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC. The plaintiff appears to have consciously avoided to state about partition dated 21.09.1953. In para 8 of the plaint, she has merely stated about mutation of the revenue documents to the names of three sons of Gummanna. Though according to her the mutation effected was for their convenience, it is possible to infer that without there being some kind of settlement of the family properties, it was not possible to effect mutation. If in the sale deeds executed in the favour of K.V. Manjunath and Chennamma she mentioned about the partition and if in the plaint she avoided to state about the partition, it only shows her intention to reopen the partition of all the properties that belonged to joint family of Gummanna. If the plaintiff knew about the partition, in all fairness she must have disclosed it and sought partition only in respect of properties that were allotted to her father. Bringing a suit for partition in respect of all the properties was not only unnecessary but also scandalous in the sense that it was disgraceful on her part to claim partition in respect of properties which fell to the share of her uncles and now being enjoyed by their legal heirs. Driving the heirs of her uncles to face litigation is nothing but vexatious. The trial court has referred to the suit i.e., O.S.No.849/2003 filed by defendants No.17 to 19 and one deceased Krishnappa in respect of land in survey Nos.77 and 190 and in the said suit a finding was given that partition had taken place on 21.09.1953. The said suit was dismissed and the R.F.A. filed before this court was also dismissed. These material facts having been suppressed by the plaintiff, it can be stated that defendants No.7 and 14 are justified in seeking deletion of some of the items of suit property and some of the defendants. They need not face litigation for these reasons. The said suit was dismissed and the R.F.A. filed before this court was also dismissed. These material facts having been suppressed by the plaintiff, it can be stated that defendants No.7 and 14 are justified in seeking deletion of some of the items of suit property and some of the defendants. They need not face litigation for these reasons. Therefore, I don’t find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence writ petition is dismissed.