This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 06.09.2010, in I.A.No.835 of 2008, in O.S.No.53 of 2008, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

I have heard Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.Pridvi Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

Even though notice is sent to respondent No.2, the same has not returned served or otherwise. Respondent No.2 has adopted the stand of respondent No.1 taken in the written statement filed before the lower Court and as respondent No.1 is contesting this case, it is not necessary to await service of notice on respondent No.2.

The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of his exclusive right over the suit wall. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement, wherein he has also claimed exclusive right over the suit wall. Respondent No.2 adopted the written statement of respondent No.1. Following the written statement of respondent No.1, the petitioner filed I.A.No.835 of 2008 seeking leave of the Court for filing rejoinder. Respondent No.1 contested the said application. By order, dated 06.09.2010, the lower Court dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

A perusal of the order of the lower Court shows that the sole ground on which the petitioner’s application was dismissed was that he has failed to indicate in his petition as to what are the facts that have come to light through the pleadings of respondent No.1 and that the leave of the Court cannot be obtained for rejoinder without his coming out with specific pleading as to the necessity for filing such rejoinder.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the lower Court is grossly erroneous. He has submitted that the petitioner has filed the application for the leave of the Court for filing rejoinder at the right earnest i.e., within short period after respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filing written statement and respondent No.2/defendant No.2 adopting the said written statement. The learned counsel also submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner’s application, he has clearly stated that certain facts pertaining to O.S.No.89 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam filed by two persons, by name, Suthram Gopalaiah and Suthram Ramakumar, against the respondents, came to his knowledge recently and the facts pleaded in the said case are very much relevant to the present case. The learned counsel further submitted that the written statement has referred to two documents, the recitals of which need to be explained in the rejoinder. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Malgireddy Venkata Ramana v. Thippana Narsi Reddy (2010(3) ALT 630), in support of his submission that an application for rejoinder can be filed to explain the contents of the written statement on material aspects.

The learned counsel for respondent No.1, while seeking to sustain the order of the lower Court, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sardar Darshan Singh v. Surjeeth Kaur (2007(3) ALT 193)and also the principles laid down in Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha (AIR 1974 SC 1178), which was referred to and relied upon by this Court in Sardar Darshan Singh (2 supra).

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

Order VIII Rule 9 CPC deals with subsequent pleadings. It has imposed bar on the parties filing pleadings subsequent to the filing of the written statement other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim, except by the leave of the Court. This provision per se does not stipulate any limitations on the power of the Court to allow the parties to file subsequent pleadings. However, the Courts have interpreted this provision by reading certain limitations into the same, obviously to