A plaintiff cannot be permitted to file subsequent pleadings under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC without leave of the court. The court can grant leave to file a rejoinder if there are new facts pleaded in the written statement or subsequent events that were not within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to introduce new pleas by way of rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint.

1. - Petitioner-plaintiff has laid this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order dated 04.09.2015 (Annex.6) passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur (for short 'the learned court below') whereby learned court below has rejected the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 8, Rule 9 and under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending the said application.

2. There is a checkered history of the case but for convenience the facts in brevity are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the first respondent and further a relief was craved for possession of the property. Yet another prayer was made seeking direction against all the respondents to execute registered instrument of sale in his favour for the consideration amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- which was mentioned in the agreement to sale. The learned court below issued summons to the respondents-defendants and none appeared for the respondents. Therefore, ex parte proceedings were taken against them and finally ex parte decree was passed by the learned court below on 22.11.1994. Against the ex parte judgment and decree of the learned court below, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 laid application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte decree but the said effort of the respondents proved abortive and the learned court below rejected their application by order dated 11.02.2009. Being aggrieved of the said order, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed two separate miscellaneous appeals before this Court which were registered as CMA No.684/2009 & 762/2010 respectively. The appeals were finally heard by learned Single Judge on 13.07.2015 and both appeals were allowed whereby the impugned order dated 11.02.2009 rejecting the application for setting aside ex parte decree was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned court below for deciding it afresh within six months. After remand, separate written statements were filed by both the respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, the first respondent has not participated in the proceedings. After submission of written statement of both the respondents, the petitioner made endeavour to file subsequent pleading with respect to both the written statements and an application under Order 8, Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC in this behalf was laid before the court below. Along with application, under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC proposed rejoinder is also enclosed. It appears that there was some amendment to be made in the application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC and, therefore, the petitioner made endeavour to make necessary amendment in the application and that being so the application under Order 6, Rule 17 is submitted. The learned court below after hearing the rival submissions by the impugned order rejected both the applications.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the other materials available on record.

4. Order 8, Rule 9 CPC envisages the provision for subsequent pleadings which in common parlance is called rejoinder. It starts with a non-obstante clause with a stipulation that no pleadings subsequent to written statement of defendant shall be presented except by the leave of the court and upon such terms as the court thinks fit, but for by way of defence to set off or counter claim. Meaning thereby, in case of defence to set off or counter claim, a plaintiff can file subsequent pleadings as a matter of right. However, in other cases, if the plaintiff is desirous to file subsequent pleadings he is required to obtain leave of the Court and the Court may grant such leave with certain terms and conditions as it deems fit. Therefore, intent of the legislature is clear that in normal circumstances, pleadings other than defence too set off or counter claim, can be filed by the plaintiff after craving leave of the court and in terms of the leave granted by the court. Now, in that background, if the appl