Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Shri Sainkul Chorasi Purbia Piao And Bagechi Sansthan, Naiyon Ki Bagechi Kamla Nehru Nagar First, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur Through, Present Vice-President Hariom S/o Shyam Lal Ji and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Achalaram, S/o Shri Pukhraj and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 281 Of 2020
Decided On : 07-08-2024
ORDER - CIVIL PROCEDURE - The court upheld the lower court's decision to allow the plaintiffs' rejoinder, emphasizing the introduction of new facts by the defendants, which warranted a response. The court declined to interfere further due to the progression of the case since the original order.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed against an order from December 16, 2019, by the Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which allowed the plaintiffs' application under Order 8 Rule 9, CPC, permitting their rejoinder to be taken on record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court had justifiably allowed the rejoinder as it addressed new facts presented by the defendants, and significant proceedings had occurred since the original order.
Issues: Whether the court should interfere with the lower court's decision to allow the plaintiffs' rejoinder at this stage of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the introduction of new facts by the defendants justified the plaintiffs' rejoinder, and given the progress of the case, it was inappropriate to interfere with the lower court's order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
Parties Involved:
Shri Sainkul Chorasi Purbia Piao And Bagechi Sansthan, Naiyon Ki Bagechi Kamla Nehru Nagar First, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur (through Vice-President Hariom S/o Shyam Lal Ji and Ors.) as Petitioners versus Achalaram S/o Shri Pukhraj and Ors. as Respondents. (!)
Proceedings:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 281 of 2020 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, decided on 07-08-2024 by Rekha Borana, J. (!) (!)
Challenge in Writ Petition:
Filed against the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.04/2019, whereby plaintiffs' application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC was allowed, permitting their rejoinder to be taken on record. (!)
Lower Court's Reasoning:
The lower court recorded that defendants introduced certain new facts in their pleadings, and the rejoinder was specifically in response to those new facts, justifying its permission to be taken on record. (!)
Procedural Posture:
The impugned order was passed in 2019, after which the suit proceeded to the stage of plaintiffs' evidence, indicating substantial progress in proceedings. (!)
High Court's Findings and Decision:
Interference at this late stage was declined due to substantial proceedings undertaken post-2019 order; writ petition disposed of, along with stay petition and all pending applications. (!) (!)
Core Legal Principle Affirmed:
Rejoinder permissible in response to new facts introduced by the opposing party, particularly after significant case progression. (!) (!) (!)
ORDER :
(Rekha Borana, J.) :
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.04/2019 whereby the application under Order 8 Rule 9, CPC as preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed and the rejoinder as filed by them has been permitted to be taken on record.
2. While allowing the application, the learned Court specifically recorded a finding that there were certain new facts averred by the defendants and hence, the pleadings as made in the rejoinder were in response to the said new facts only. The Court therefore permitted the rejoinder as filed to be taken on record.
3. A perusal of the record makes it clear that the order impugned was passed way back in the year 2019 and after the said order been passed, the matter was posted for plaintiffs’ evidence. Meaning thereby, much water has flown thereafter.
4. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition at this stage as, after 2019, when the matter was posted for plaintiffs’ evidence, substantial proceedings would have already been undertaken in the suit. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of.
5. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
The court affirmed the principle that a rejoinder can be permitted in response to new facts introduced by the opposing party, particularly when substantial proceedings have already taken place.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the trial court to provide a reasoned decision when allowing further pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, particularly after ....
The court allowed the defendants to file their written statement due to procedural irregularities and lack of awareness of non-filing.
The interpretation of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC affirms the plaintiff's right to file a rejoinder to a written statement, ensuring fair opportunity to respond to the defendant's claims.
A rejoinder can be filed at any stage of proceedings under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC without a specified limitation, and mere delay is not sufficient to justify denial if it does not prejudice the opp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
