Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned advocate, on instructions by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.09.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in T.S. No. 98/2015, thereby rejecting petition No. 2721/2016 dated 01.06.2016, seeking leave for filing rejoinder/replication and to allow some time for the same. Also in challenge is the order dated 15.05.2017, passed by the same learned Court in Misc.(J) Case No. 85/2015 in T.S. No. 98/2015, thereby rejecting petition No. 272 dated 01.06.2016, containing similar prayer seeking leave for filing rejoinder/replication and to allow some time for the same.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in T.S. No. 98/2015, which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction, inter-alia, praying for a declaration that the debit note dated 07.09.2015, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, relating to payment of Rs. 48,34,733/- is illegal, null and void, not binding on the plaintiff and the same be delivered up and cancelled, for declaration that the letter dated 23.11.2015, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff demanding payment of Rs. 48,34,733/- is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and the same be delivered and cancelled, for perpetual injunction, temporary injunction, cost of suit etc.

4. In connection with the said suit, the petitioner had filed a separate injunction application which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 85/2015. Both the suit and injunction application was contested by the respondent by filing written statement and written objection.

5. By filing petitions No. 2721/2016 and 272/2016, the petitioner had stated therein that the respondent had averted certain facts which requires to be replied by the petitioner for proper adjudication of the case and, as such, it was stated that the petitioner had intended to file rejoinder/replication in the suit as well as in the injunction application, for which the petitioner sought for time to file the rejoinder/replication. However, by the orders impugned herein, the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh had rejected both the petitions on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any rejoinder/replication nor clarified the points on which they want to file the proposed rejoinder and in the absence of any clarification, it was held that a blanket application cannot be allowed.

6. As two separate orders are under challenge, the challenge ought to have been separately made. Nonetheless, as notice in this case was issued on 23.06.2017, this Court has refrained from returning this application to enable the petitioner from separately challenging the two orders.

7. Assailing both the orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has powers under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to allow subsequent pleadings to be brought on record at any time. In this regard it is submitted that in the impugned order, the learned trial court had made an observation that no provisions of law was quoted in petitions No. 2721/2016 and 272/2016. However, non-quoting of the provisions of law in the said petitions could not have been a ground to deny the right of the petitioner to controvert the statements made by the respondent in their written statement and written objection.

8. It is submitted that unless the petitioner is permitted to put their stand on record by filing a replication, they may not be permitted to lead evidence in the absence of pleadings. It is submitted that there was no delay in filing the said application for leave to file rejoinder for the replication because the written statement was filed in the month of March, 2016 and the said two petitions were filed by the petitioner on 01.06.2016.

9. It is submitted t