Krishna S.Dixit, J.

Petitioner/Plaintiff has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 23.01.2015 made by the learned IV Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) at Tumkur, on his application under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC, 1908, whereby leave to file rejoinder to the Written Statement of the defendant Nos.8 to 13 is denied on the sole ground that the said provisions of CPC avail only to the defendants and not to the plaintiffs. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel who opposes the Writ Petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff vehemently contends that the right to file rejoinder by way of Additional Pleadings under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC, does avail to the plaintiffs as well and therefore, the impugned order is flawsome, warranting indulgence of this court in its writ jurisdiction to set the injustice at naught, occasioned thereby. In support of his contention, he banks upon certain Rulings of the Apex Court and of this court which shall be adverted to infra.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendants taking the court through the text of the said provisions, contends with equal vehemence that the right to file Additional Pleadings by way of Rejoinder, Replication or otherwise is confined to the defendants and an argument to the contrary would militate against the text and context of the said provisions. In support of his submission, he banks upon a Ruling of this court which shall be discussed hereinafter.

4. In view of these rival contentions, the short question of law of some significance that arises for consideration in this case is:

Whether the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC, 1908, do avail to the plaintiffs so that they too can file the Additional Pleadings as against the contentions in the Written Statements of the defendants in a suit?

5. Rule 9 of Order VIII of CPC, as amended in 1976 and in 2002 reads as under:

“9. No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.”

6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court (Noronha, J)in the case of R. Dayananda Sagar Vs. Vatal Nagaraj, (1972) 2 MYSLJ 328 at para 13 observed: Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code refers to a pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant, to be filed by leave of the court. The word “pleading” would, as it appears to me, include a reply Statement of the plaintiff. In the case of Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Vs. Peddappayachari (RSA No.585/1974), another Co-ordinate Bench (G.N. Sabhahit, J) observed that, Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure which speaks of subsequent pleadings makes it manifest that, if, in the written statement, the defendant sets out a counterclaim or claims a set off, the plaintiff has a right of reply to the written statement and that forms part of the pleadings. If the plaintiff wants to file an additional statement, however, in other cases, he has to seek and take the permission of the Court. The Apex Court in the case of K.Laxmanan Vs. Thekkyil Padmini, (2009) AIR SC 951 at paragraph 31 observed “31. Pleadings as we understand under the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the “Code”) and as is defined under the provision of Rule 1 Order VI of the Code consist only of a plaint and a written statement. The respondents/plaintiff could have filed a replication in respect to the plea raised in the written statement, which if allowed by the court would have become the part of the pleadings, but mere non filing of a replication does not and could not mean that there has been admission of the facts pleaded in the written statement.”

7. Yet another Co-ordinate Bench (Ajit J.Gun