The court established that the right to file a rejoinder is crucial for ensuring that parties can adequately contest new facts introduced in litigation, reinforcing the procedural rights under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC.

ORDER

1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging the orders dated 12.09.2013 & 19.02.2014 respectively, whereby application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC has been rejected and the rejoinder which the petitioners had proposed to file, has been declined to be taken on record by the Court below.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed the amended plaint and after amendment was permitted, the defendants filed their written statement to the amended plaint.

3. Learned counsel submitted that in the written statement apart from denying contents of the plaint, the defendants also had taken additional pleas in their written statement and as such it had become necessary for the petitioners to file rejoinder.

4. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the new facts which had come on record in additional pleas it, had become imperative that rejoinder be filed and certain new facts were required to be controverted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has wrongly recorded a finding that no new facts had come in the amended written statement of which proper rejoinder was required to be filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs.

6. Learned counsel submitted that once the additional pleas were taken on record, then petitioners were to place the correct facts before the Court below, by controverting the additional pleas, and it was necessary that the rejoinder should have been permitted to be filed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that bare perusal of the application filed by the petitioners, nowhere reveals that as why permission was sought by the petitioners to file rejoinder and what new pleadings they were taking in their rejoinder.

8. Learned counsel submitted that the application, so filed, by the petitioners, did not make out any case where they could have been permitted to file rejoinder.

9. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. This Court finds that if the defendants had filed written statement and some additional pleas were taken by them, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to file rejoinder to controvert the said pleadings which were taken in the written statements. The very purpose of filing rejoinder is to place on record the facts to controvert the new facts which have been given in the written statement and in the interest of justice, such procedure is required to be followed.

11. This Court finds that the Court below has not considered the scope of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC in a proper manner and it has wrongly rejected the opportunity of the petitioners to file rejoinder.

12. This Court accordingly sets aside the orders dated 12.09.2013 & 19.02.2014 and permits the rejoinder of the petitioners to be taken on record. The Trial Court will accordingly proceed in the matter.

13. Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand disposed of.

14. A copy of this order be placed in connected petition.