The interpretation of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC affirms the plaintiff's right to file a rejoinder to a written statement, ensuring fair opportunity to respond to the defendant's claims.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition by the plaintiff in OS.No.594/2019 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the trial Court') is directed against the impugned order dtd. 4/1/2020 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') for permission to file a reply/rejoinder to the written statement was rejected by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. It is undisputed that the defendant No.1 is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the brother and sisters of the plaintiff. The suit schedule properties involves the estate of Late Sri. B.C.Anantharamaiah [husband of the defendant No.1 and father of the parties]. In the written statement, respondent Nos.1 and 2- defendant Nos.1 and 2, in addition to disputing and denying the various contentions and claims put forth by the plaintiffs have propounded the Will dtd. 11/6/2010 said to have been executed by Sri. B.C.Anantharamaiah. It is therefore contended that by virtue of the last Will and Testament dtd. 11/6/2010, the defendant No.2 has became the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and the suit was liable to be dismissed. After the written statement of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was filed whereby the Will was propounded by them, the petitionerplaintiff filed the instant application invoking Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC seeking permission to file a rejoinder/reply to the written statement.

4. A perusal of the said rejoinder will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff has specifically denied and disputed the execution, genuineness and validity of the Will propounded by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said application filed by the petitioner having been opposed by the respondents-defendant Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC does not apply to a rejoinder/reply in the absence of setoff or counterclaim as held in the case of Glen Fredric Picardo Vs. Rodney Picardo and Ors., AIR 2011 KARNATAKA. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the sole ground on which the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for permission to file a rejoinder/reply is that the same was impermissible in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Glen Fredric Picardo (supra).

6. In this context, it is relevant to state that the said judgment has been subsequently overruled by this Court in the case of Krishnamurthy Vs. Hanumakka and Others, 2019 (4) KCCR 3032. wherein, it has held as under:

"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. Vata