1. Suit for cancellation of sale deed — Application for leave to file rejoinder to written statements — Review of order rejecting said application. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1014
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
M/s Prime Properties - Appellant
Versus
Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died) Through Her Lrs & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9227 OF 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6464 of 2022)
Decided on : 29-09-2022
Important Points
The case emphasizes the need for expeditious proceedings while ensuring the balance of procedural rules in the context of filing pleadings in a civil suit.
Subject
Civil Law - Pleadings and Amendments
Act Referred
Headnote
Pleadings - Civil Procedure - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. I.H. Syed, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarath S. Janardanan, Adv. Mr. Srinivas Mantha, Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A.C. Pradhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Niraj Gupta, AOR Mr. Jayant Bhusan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni S, Adv. Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Basu, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Adv. Mr. N. Eswara Rao, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. I.H. Syed, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarath S. Janardanan, Adv. Mr. Srinivas Mantha, Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A.C. Pradhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Niraj Gupta, AOR Mr. Jayant Bhusan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni S, Adv. Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Basu, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Adv. Mr. N. Eswara Rao, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff asserts review corrected a factual error regarding filing dates; defendants contend the rejoinder introduces a new case and seeks to protract litigation. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. The court emphasized balancing procedural rules with the necessity for expeditious trial, noting that defendants must be allowed to respond to any new facts pleaded. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Procedural rules on pleadings must be applied to ensure trial progression without prejudice, permitting sur-rejoinders to address new facts introduced in a rejoinder. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal allowed in part — Rejoinder permitted on record — Defendants granted leave to file sur-rejoinder limited to new facts pleaded in the rejoinder. (Para 12 , 16 )
6. Can a party file a sur-rejoinder after a rejoinder is taken on record?
Yes, to prevent prejudice and ensure a fair trial, the court may permit defendants to file a sur-rejoinder, provided it is strictly confined to responding to new facts introduced in the plaintiff's rejoinder. (Para 12 )
7. How should courts handle procedural disputes over pleadings in long-pending suits?
Courts should adopt orders conducive to the expeditious progression of the suit rather than allowing procedural disputes to protract litigation, while simultaneously ensuring that the balance of procedural rules prevents prejudice to any party. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2022 as passed by the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP No. 204 of 2022, whereby the High Court has disapproved the order dated 29.12.2021 passed by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, allowing the review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. While allowing the review application, the Trial Court has taken the subsequent pleadings filed by the plaintiff in the form of rejoinder on record, in supersession of its earlier order dated 29.11.2021, whereby such a permission was declined.
3. The matter essentially relates to filing of pleadings but, various factors and aspects have got entangled because of the long pendency and multifarious incidental proceedings. However, for the present purpose, suffice would be to notice the relevant background aspects and proceedings to the extent relevant to the questions at hand. They are as follows:
3.1. The plaintiff-appellant has filed O.S. No. 898 of 2001 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against the defendant No. 1 – Society seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 15.04.1996 in relation to a parcel of land situated in Survey No. 1007 at Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant has also filed three other suits, being O.S. Nos. 899 to 901 of 2001 for similar reliefs in respect of other parcels of land in the said Survey No. 1007.
3.2. The issues in the suit were framed on 19.08.2005. Then, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint on 17.01.2006. According to the contesting respondents, the appellant did not carry out amendment for a long time and ultimately the suits were dismissed for non-prosecution on 05.11.2008. Then the suits were restored only in the year 2011.
3.3. Thereafter, the contesting respondents herein filed I.A. No. 787 of 2018 in O.S. No. 898 of 2001 seeking their impleadment as party defendants. This application was dismissed on 31.12.2018. However, the High Court disapproved the order so passed by the Trial Court and allowed the impleadment of contesting respondents in the order dated 27.03.2019 passed in CRP No. 391 of 2019. The order so passed by the High Court was sought to be challenged by the appellant in SLP(C) No. 11052 of 2019 in this Court but, the same was dismissed by the Order dated 08.05.2019. In this order, this Court took note of the fact that the Trial Court had been directed to decide the suit within six months; and while reiterating such directions, this Court also made it clear that any other impleadment of individual members in future will not either derail or delay the proceeding in the suit. For ready reference, the relevant contents of the order dated 08.05.2019 could be re produced as under: -
“The Special Leave Petition is dismissed since it is from an order impleading individual members.
The trial Court has been asked to decide the Suits within a period of 6 months. We make it clear that individual impleadments of members in futuro will not, in any manner, either derail or delay further proceedings in the Suits.
We reiterate that the trial Court must decide the Suits within a period of 6 months from today.”
3.4. On 06.06.2019, the Trial Court allowed another application moved by the appellant for amendment of the plaint. According to the contesting respondents, the amended copy of the plaint was filed only on 25.03.2021 by adding them as defendants. It has also been pointed out that on 19.08.2020, this Court again directed the Trial Court to decide the suits within six months in C.P. No. 433 of 2020. On 23.07.2021, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 3 were brought on record as defendant Nos. 9 to 11. On 26.07.2021, the appellant filed the amended plaint by including the newly impleaded parties as defendants.
3.5. Thereafter, the plaintiff f
