The petitioner has instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of perpetual injunction with respect to immovable property against respondents Nos. l to 8 which at present is on the file of Mr. Abid Rizwan Civil Judge Gujranwala. The defendants filed an application under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. For deletion of some portion of the plaint on the ground that the same are unnecessary and scandalous. The petition was resisted by the petitioner-plaintiff. A portion of the plaint was directed to be deleted. The defendants filed the revision petition being aggrieved and dissatisfied thereof as whole of the ttlbte*al desired and required to be deleted was not directed to be removed from the pleadings. Vide order dated 9-9-1996 a learned Additional District Judge Gujranwala accepted the application and directed about the deletion of the specific portion from the plaint. Feeling aggrieved Jan Muhammad petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. I have heard Jan Muhammad petitioner in person at length. He uttered some words about the inclination of the learned Additional District Judge towards the respondents-defendants. He complained about the long pendency of his suit and delay in the administration of justice. He canvassed that the portions directed to be deleted from the pleadings were necessary for reaching at the right conclusion for the better administration of justice and proper disposal of the controversy.
3. At the very outset I would express that the petitioner seems to be a seasoned person having good language. The persons of his category and calibre are being lost by the society with the passage of time. However, the law of the land has to take its course. A perusal of the original-plaint has made out that the same is full of sarcastic sentences, unnecessary observations and scandalous narration about the status of the defendants. In such a state of affairs Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.'C. Has to play the legal role. For the purpose of convenience the aforesaid provision is reproduced as under:-- Order VI. Rule 16 Code of Civil Procedure "16. Striking out pleadingsThe Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading which may be unnecessary or scandalous or which may tend to prejudice, embarras or delay the fair trial of the suit. "
After making a perusal of the impugned order it can safely be expressed that no irregularity has been committed by the learned lower Appellate Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The same can safely be held to be unexceptional. I also asked Jan Muhammad petitioner to be courteous towards other including the adverseries. It is proper to express at this stage that kind words, written or 'verbal, cost nothing. Harsh and irritating words do not break the bones but those certianly break the heart and when the heart is broken it is immaterial if the bones are intact. To meet such a situation the framers of law have rightly and wisely introduced the provisions of Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. The working of the learned Additional District Judge and the status of the defendants need not be analysed or dissected by this Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction. As such I hold that the writ petition need not be admitted and processed with.
4.I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition in limine.
5.Before parting with this order I would impress upon the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit within reasonable time as the same is hanging fire for the last about one decade. I also advise Jan Muhammad petitioner to invoke the assistance of the Member Inspection Team, Lahore High Court; Lahore in the matter, if required and desired by him.