L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 19. 4. 2004 in la. No. 6 of 2002 in O. S. No. 79 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla.

( 2 ) PETITIONER filed the suit for recovery of certain amounts from the respondent. On receipt of the notice, the respondent filed written statement. One of the pleas taken in the written statement is that the suit amount was repaid and thereby the liability under the promissory note is discharged. The petitioner filed LA. No. 6 of 2002 seeking permission of the Court to file a rejoinder in the form of additional pleadings to the assertion made by the respondent as regards discharge of the suit amount. The trial Court rejected the application through the order under revision.

( 3 ) SRI K. Someswar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the necessity to file the rejoinder arose on account of the plea taken by the respondent in the written statement to the effect that the suit amount was paid and that the petitioner issued a receipt for the same. He submits that the view taken by the Trial court that there cannot be any further pleadings other than counter-claim or set off runs contrary to the scope of Rule 9 of order VIII C. P. C.

( 4 ) SRI C. B. Ram Mohan Reddy. learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that there was absolutely no necessity for the petitioner to file the rejoinder and that the petitioner intends to make out altogether a new case on the basis of the same. He contends that the rejoinder that was placed before the trial Court was so elaborate that it was mostly directed against an advocate by name Atchuta Reddy. Learned Counsel submits that the plea that is sought to be taken under the rejoinder can certainly be the subject-matter of evidence and trial and that no interference is called for with the order under revision.

( 5 ) THE suit was filed for the relief of recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note. In his written statement, the respondent made extensive reference to the manner in which the suit amount is said to have been paid. He did not deny the execution of the promissory note. He pleaded that an amount of rs. 1,00,000/- was sent by him to the petitioner through his wife on 13. 10. 2000 and after receiving the same, the petitioner issued a receipt with his seal. The petitioner sought to deny this plea by filing the rejoinder. In addition to denying the repayment, he has also narrated the circumstances under which some of the papers signed by him were retained by his former advocate Sri Atchuta Reddy. The trial Court dismissed the application by taking the view that subsequent pleadings other than counter-claim and set off cannot be entertained.

( 6 ) THE Code of Civil Procedure provides for presentation of plaint under order VII and filing of written statement under Order VIII C. P. C. Depending on the nature of the plea and subject-matter of the dispute, the Code also permits a defendant to take a further plea in the form of counterclaim or set off. For all practical purposes, counter-claim or set off has to be treated as an independent suit and the plaintiff would be entitled to file a separate written statement in relation to the counterclaim or set off.

( 7 ) SET off and counter-claim are dealt with under Rules 6 and 6a respectively of Order VIII C. P. C. Rule 9 thereof deals with subsequent pleadings. A reading of the same discloses that while it is the prerogative of a defendant to plead a set off or counter-claim without the leave of the Court, such a leave is necessary for further pleadings of any other nature. The Trial Court has misread this rule and arrived at a conclusion that no subsequent pleadings, other than set off and counterclaim can be entertained. It needs to be clarified that the gist of Rule 9 is that, while presentation of counter-claim or set off does not need the permission or leave of the court, such leave is necessary in rela

Click Here to Read the rest of this document