A plaintiff cannot introduce new pleas in his plaint so as to alter the basis of his plaint, and a rejoinder is to be filed only with the permission of the Court and after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant petitioner against two orders of the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur, dated 6th and 7th February, 1987, by which he has allowed the plaintiff petitioner to file a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the petitioner. The second order of 7th February, 1987, is an order by which time has been granted to the petitioner to file revision, which cannot be said to be of any importance in the face of the first order which has to be examined in this revision petition.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is a tenant of non-petitioner No. 1 against whom a suit was instituted on the ground of personal necessity. This suit was decreed by the trial Court and the petitioner filed an appeal which is pending before the Additional District Judge No. 4. During the course of pendency of this appeal, he moved an application for the amendment of his written statement. In order to introduce the facts that the plaintiff-non-petitioner had obtained a decree for eviction against the another tenant one Manmohan Corporation and after executing the same had constructed four show-rooms in that plot, out of which he retained one for himself and let out three on rent to different persons. This amendment application was allowed by the Additional District Judge hearing the appeal by order dated 28.7.1986 but at the time a condition was imposed that he would not be given any opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the amendment. The petitioner preferred a revision before this Court, which was decided on 31.10.86 and in the interests of justice it was ordered that when the amendment had been allowed then it was necessary that the party should be allowed to adduce evidence also. It was also observed that the plaintiff-non-petitioner, if he desires, may file a rejoinder to the amended statement and then if necessary fresh issues be framed and then the matter may be decided after evidence. It was also directed that the appeal should be disposed within a period of four months.

3. In pursuance of the above order, the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the petitioner and to this the petitioner raised objections saying that the plaintiff could file a rejoinder with the permission of the Court only to that part of the written statement which had been amended by the petitioner. According to him, it was not open to the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the whole of the written statement. This objection of the petitioner was rejected, therefore, the petitioner has come up in this revision.

4. The question to be decided is whether it is open to the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the whole of the amended written statement of the defendant after it has been amended or only to that part which has been amended.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that if the plaintiff is allowed to file a rejoinder to all the pleadings which have been raised in the written-statement then it would amount to change of the basis of the suit and the plaint would become a plaint on a different cause of action. In the rejoinder, plaintiff would be able to raise pleas inconsistent with the pleas raised earlier and this is not permissible. According to Order 8, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code pleadings subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set off or counter claim shall be presented by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court may accept.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has contended that when this Court while disposing the earlier revision has observed that the plaintiff non-petitioner can file a rejoinder to the written statement then it is open to him to file a replica to the whole of the written statement and it is not necessary that he should confine to that part of the written statement only which has been amended subsequently by the petitioner. He has placed