The central legal principle established in the judgment is that parties should be permitted to file their pleadings when new facts come to light after the completion of pleadings, in order to avoid frustrating the purpose of Order 8 Rule 9.

ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Civil Court whereby application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, for filing rejoinder has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent-Bank.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents filed written statement and they have taken certain preliminary objections in the written statements and further also denied parawise averments made in the plaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after filing of the written statement by the respondents, issues were framed by the Civil Court and on the basis of averments made in the written statement, an issue No.4 has been framed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after framing of the issue by the Civil Court on the basis of pleading in the written statement, the petitioners were left with no other choice except to file an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for seeking permission to file rejoinder to the written statement.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below by impugned order dated 09.01.2019 has rejected the application of the petitioners by holding that no additional plea has been taken by the respondents, which warrants filing of rejoinder.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue with regard to the misconduct being committed by the petitioners or not, was solely based on the plea which was raised by the respondents in the written statement and it had become imperative on the part of the petitioners to controvert the said pleadings by way of filing the rejoinder.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the very purpose of filing subsequent pleadings/rejoinder will be frustrated if any party to the suit proceedings is not permitted to controvert the pleadings which are taken by the other side and in particular when new pleas are raised.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the issue which has been framed by the court below, needs to be decided after proper pleadings are made by the parties and as such the court below has committed an error while rejecting the application.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the court below has not committed any illegality in passing the order.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention to this Court towards application filed by the petitioners for seeking permission of placing the rejoinder on record.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners in their application nowhere mentioned that in which para new pleading was made by the respondent-Bank in the written statement.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners ought to have specifically pleaded, as the rejoinder was required to be controverted in respect of specific pleadings which are alleged to be taken by the respondents in the written statement.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the court below while considering the contents of the application has rightly refused to take rejoinder on record.

15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the rejoinder which was sought to be filed by the petitioners also reiterated the same facts which were taken in the plaint and as such the court below has not committed any illegality.

16. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the issue of misconduct or any other issue which has been framed by the court below was only on the basis of original plaint which was filed by the petitioners and subsequent written statement filed by the respondent-Bank.

17. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no new fact was brought on record which could have permitted filing of the rejoinder.

18. I have heard the submissions made by learned co