A plaintiff may not file a replication to evidence produced by a defendant; such pleadings require court permission and must address new facts or contentions raised in written statements.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.87/2013 is directed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.VI by the Additional Civil Judge in JMFC, Challakere, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking leave to file replication/reply/rejoinder/subsequent pleadings in response to certain documents produced by the defendant No.1 during the course of evidence was rejected by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, both parties went to trial and the matter was posted for final arguments at which stage the petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant application I.A.No.VI for grant of leave/permission to replication/reply/rejoinder/subsequent pleading by way of response to the documents produced by defendant No.1. The said application having been opposed by the respondents-defendant No.1, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the plaintiff in a suit would be entitled to file replication or reply only to the written statements/pleadings of the defendants and a reply/rejoinder/replication cannot be filed by a plaintiff to the evidence produced by the defendants. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial Court held as under:

“ORDERS ON IA No.VI

The present application is filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave of this Hon'ble Court to file replication/subsequent pleadings in response to certain documents produced by the 1st defendant during the course of his evidence, particularly an agreement of marriage that allegedly includes reference to certain movable articles relevant to the subject matter of the suit.

2. The application is supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff, wherein it is averred that the said document was produced at the during the examination in chief of defendant No 1 which necessitates reply to it. It is submitted that it is not practicable to seek an amendment to the plaint at this stage and that law permits a party to file replication or rejoinder in appropriate circumstances where the opposite party introduces new facts or documents during trial, with the leave of the Court.

3. The defendants have filed objections to the application, opposing the grant of leave. It is contended that the law does not permit the plaintiff to file a reply merely in response to documents produced during evidence, especially in the absence of a counter-claim. The defendants further allege that the application is an abuse of the process of Court and is intended to delay the proceedings.

4. On the basis of the above, point for consideration is that:

"Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds for granting leave permitting him to file replication/subsequent pleading by allowing the application?"

5. This Court have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the pleadings, the impugned application, the affidavit, the objections, placed on record. On that basis, finding of this Court on the above point is in the "Negative" for the following:

Reasons:

6. Point No.1 The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff can be permitted to f