Point of Law: There is no whisper in the affidavit filed by the petitioner as to why this application could not be filed earlier. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever, the Courts cannot allow application for amendment of pleadings as a matter of right for the parties or as a matter of duty of the Court

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.36 of 2019 in O.S.No.110 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the said I.A.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said I.A. under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking leave of the Court to file rejoinder to the written statement filed by respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3. The petitioner/plaintiff, filed the above said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.05.2006. The 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3, respondents in the present petition, filed their respective written statements. The petitioner filed the said I.A., inter alia, stating that the defendants 2 and 3, filed written statement with inconsistent pleas, raised additional pleas and contentions and as such, he was advised to file rejoinder to traverse the same. Along with the said I.A., the petitioner also filed rejoinder.

3. Respondents filed a counter stating inter alia that raising of new pleas and additional contentions etc, is not sufficient to seek permission to file rejoinder, that there are no cogent reasons for seeking the relief prayed for, as they have filed written statement on 01.06.2017 and that after commencement of trial, the petitioner is not entitled to file rejoinder. It is also stated in the counter that without explaining the reasons for the delay, the I.A. was filed only with a view to fill up the lacuna, which the plaintiff noticed in view of dismissal of O.S.Nos.465 and 789 of 2009 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, which were filed by the persons in the group of the petitioner/plaintiff, and the same cannot be entertained. The trial Court, after considering the contentions advanced on both sides, dismissed the I.A. vide order dated 29.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present C.R.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yallabandi Ramatirtha, contended that the order of the trial Court is unsustainable and constitutes improper exercise of powers vested in it. In support of his contention, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner earlier filed I.A.No.1085 of 2016 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead the respondents 2 and 3 herein as defendants in the suit and the same was allowed on 22.03.2017 and that the 3rd respondent filed a separate application in I.A.No.806 of 2012 seeking permission to represent the 1st defendant in the suit and as the said I.A. was allowed, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred C.R.P.No1681 of 2017 before this Court and that by virtue of the interim orders granted in the said C.R.P., the proceedings in O.S.No.110 of 2009 were stayed. He further submits that during the pendency of the said C.R.P. and operation of stay granted therein, the respondents 2 and 3 herein filed their written statement and that after the dismissal of the C.R.P. on 28.11.2018, the necessity to file the rejoinder occurred, more particularly, in view of the inconsistent additional/new pleas taken by the defendants 2 and 3 and that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel submits that to prove his bonafides, the petitioner also filed rejoinder along with the above said I.A. and that itself shows the readiness on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff to proceed in the matter and that the learned trial Court, without appreciation of these crucial aspects, went wrong in dismissing the I.A. He further contends that the pleas taken by the respondents 2 and 3 which are contradictory to that of respondent No.1, unless traversed by way of rejoinder, would remain uncontroverted and the same would cause prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, prays for setting aside the orders of the trial Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in VYRICHARLA EDUCATIO