Back
RAJESH SEKHRI
Mulkh Raj – Appellant
Versus
Dheeraj Singh – Respondent
JUDGEMENT
1. Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of an order dated 09.06.2023, passed by learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Kathua ["trial Court"] in a Civil Suit titled "Mulkh Raj v. Dheeraj Singh and Ors.", vide which, an application preferred by him, in terms of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"] came to be dismissed.
2. Petitioner and respondents, hereinafter shall be referred, as per their status in the Suit i.e. as plaintiff and defendants respectively.
3. As factual narration of the controversy in the present case would unfold, a Civil Suit came to be preferred in the trial Court, by the plaintiff for declaration, declaring him as exclusive owner in possession of land, measuring 06 kanals 19 marlas, comprising Khasra No. 1136, situate at village Durang, Kathua, by way of prescription and adverse possession, with a consequential prayer for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, restraining the defendants from disputing his rights over the said property or evicting him fro m the suit land without adopting due procedure established under law or interfering in
The court clarified that under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, filing a proposed replica is not a prerequisite for seeking leave to file a replication in response to new facts raised by the defendant.
A plaintiff may not file a replication to evidence produced by a defendant; such pleadings require court permission and must address new facts or contentions raised in written statements.
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.
(1) Review jurisdiction – Application for review would also lie if order has been passed on account of some mistake—Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order—Rehearing of matter is imper....
Court must independently adjudicate temporary injunction applications, ensuring fair trial rights are upheld as per procedural laws.
Judicial discretion permits amendments to pleadings if justified, aiming for effective dispute resolution while maintaining procedural integrity.
The correctness of the pleadings should be adjudicated after considering the evidence in the trial, and the trial court must consider the aspect of subsequent events when dealing with applications fo....
Additional evidence – Application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right.
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
