The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of procedural rules, particularly Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to advance the cause of justice and do substantial justice between the parties.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Petitioner in instant petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir, throws challenge to order dated March 15, 2016, passed by learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Jammu, (for brevity "court below") in a Suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, whereby an application filed by petitioner under Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, for filing Replica to the Written Statement of Defendant No. 3, has been dismissed.

2. An application was filed by petitioner, who is plaintiff before court below, stating therein that Defendant No. 3 has filed Written Statement, raising certain issues without its comprehensive elucidation as the same provides one-sided story, beneficial to Defendant No. 3 only and that Defendant No. 3 has made mention of certain court orders and events but has not given the resume in his written statement as about taking of subsequent events. Petitioner maintains that application exhorting filing of Replica was aiming at explication of the claims made by Defendant No. 3, so as to facilitate the court below to come to just conclusion.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Mr. Bhat, learned counsel for Defendant No.3, though not filed objections to the application but resisted the same on the ground that the application does not show any ground to make out his case for granting him leave to file replica. He argued that petitioner is unnecessarily delaying disposal of the main suit for grant or otherwise of the relief as there is no ground for entertaining the petition. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid position, no petition can be filed under Article 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for questioning the order passed by the civil court.

5. Order 7, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, provides that in a plaint, name of the Court in which the suit is brought should contain; the name-, description and place of residence of both plaintiff and defendant should be mentioned; facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose and the fact showing that the court has jurisdiction should also be contained in the plaint. Order 8, Rule 1 provides as regards written statement. Order 8, Rule 2 makes provides that new facts must be specially pleaded in the written statement. A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading set off under Order 8, Rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim under Order 8, Rule 6A, against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit. Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code - subject-matter of instant cast, envisages:-

9. Subsequent pleadings - No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than byway of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same.

6. The Rule says that other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim, only with the leave of the court pleading subsequent to the written statement, shall be presented. In the present case on hand, only in compliance of the Rule, the petitioner filed the application seeking leave of the court below to receive the Replica on the grounds set out therein.

7. It is not the intention of the legislature that no pleading subsequent to the written statement should be allowed other than for reasons given therein. But the intention is that without the leave of the court, no pleading subsequent to the written statement shall be presented. Hence it goes without saying that the subsequent statement or additional statement, as Replica in the present case, could be filed only with the leave of the court on such terms, as the court thinks fit. The approach o