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 opposing party.

Order :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. Present writ petition is filed challenging order dated 20.12.2025, passed by learned Commercial Court No.1, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.41/2022, rejecting application filed by petitioner under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC seeking to place on record the subsequent pleading (rejoinder) to the written statement was rejected.

Brief Facts

2. It is stated in the plaint that petitioner is a public limited company engaged in execution of large infrastructure projects. Pursuant to NIT No. 09/2011-12 issued by the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board for execution and 10 years’ O&M of the Barmer Lift Water Supply Project (Phase-II Part- A) on turnkey basis, the petitioner’s bid was accepted and a contract dated 23.08.2012 for about Rs. 168 crores was awarded.

3. It was further stated that, under the contract, the respondents were required to provide full site access, timely approvals of drawings, designs, vendors, and QAPs, and to make payments in a timely manner. It was, however, alleged that the sites were handed over in a piecemeal and delayed manner; that statutory clearances (including Form-V and PAC) and various approvals were not accorded within the stipulated time; and that certain payments were subject to deductions towards mobilization advance, interest, and liquidated damages. It was contended that these circumstances had an impact on the progress of the project. It was also stated that requests for extension of time and revision of milestones were considered and granted on a provisional and short-term basis.

4. Finally, respondents rescinded the contract on 24.01.2018, forfeited the security deposit and proposed to get the balance work executed at the petitioner’s risk and cost. After issuance of a fresh NIT in March 2019 and award of the remaining work to another contractor, the petitioner, upon exhaustion of the contractual dispute-resolution mechanism, instituted a commercial suit in 2022 seeking declaration of termination of contract to be illegal and void and also so for recovery and damages.

5. The respondents filed their written statement raising preliminary objections and several factual and legal assertions. Suit proceedings went ahead and both parties adduced their evidences. After completion of evidence, M/s Kalinga Metalics Ltd. took over the petitioner’s business as a going concern pursuant to liquidation proceedings. Learned Commercial Court by allowing application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC permitted continuation of suit by the new management.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to place on record rejoinder to rebut new and incorrect allegations, preliminary objections and distinct interpretations of clauses of the said contract said to be introduced in the written statement. The respondents opposed the application on the ground of delay.

7. By order dated 20.12.2025, learned Commercial Court rejected the application and refused to take the rejoinder on record on the ground that petitioners have preferred the said application at a highly belated stage i.e., after completion of evidence whereas respondents have already filed the written statement on 09.07.2024.

Submissions by Parties

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Order VIII Rule 9 does not prescribe any specific period of limitation for filing of a rejoinder. Therefore, the order passed by learned Commercial Court is erroneous in law, inasmuch as the said application has been rejected solely on the ground of delay, which by itself is not a vali