The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits the filing of replication/rejoinder with the leave of the Court.

1. In this revision petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to order dated 1-12-2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad whereby the prayer made by the plaintiff-petitioner for placing on record the replication to the written statement has been declined.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the averment that the plaintiff is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 8 kanals 18 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Bhopani, Tehsil and District Faridabad in addition to other agricultural land on the basis of judgment and decree dated 28-1-1988 passed in civil suit No. 49 of 1988 titled as "Ghanshyam V/s. Smt. Shanti Devi and others".

3. The defendant-respondents filed written statement on 25-5-2005 wherein they had taken plea regarding the genesis of the suit land along with other land inherited by the parties from the forefather. The plaintiff-petitioner filed an application claiming that this has necessitated filing of replication by the plaintiff-petitioner and in case the same is not allowed it shall result in miscarriage of justice.

4. The defendant-respondents opposed the prayer of the plaintiff. The trial Court vide the impugned order has declined to take the replication filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on record.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that in view of provision of O. 8, R. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code"), the trial Court was in error in declining the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for placing replication on record which is essential for the just decision of the case. He placed reliance upon judgment of this Court reported in Hakam Singh V/s. Jagir Singh and others, 1991 (2) RRR 170 in support of his submission. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order passed by the trial Court and submitted that the revision deserved to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for placing on record the replication only on the solitary ground that there is no provision in the Code which entitles the plaintiff to file replication. 6A. I have heard counsel for the parties. Rule 9 of Order 8 of the Code reads thus:-

"9. Subsequent pleadings.- No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to 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 of not more than thirty days for presenting the same."

7. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that on leave being granted by the Court to file replication/rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to file the replication/rejoinder.

8. Learned Single Bench of this Court in Hakam Singh s case (supra) has also held that replication can be filed by the plaintiff to the written statement under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code.

9. Counsel for the petitioner had handed over a photo copy of the written statement filed by the defendant-respondents. A perusal of the written statement shows that the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for placing replication on record explaining the factual aspect on the basis of which the plea in the written statement had been taken is correct. Thus, it cannot be said that the replication is not essential for the just decision of the case. The reasoning of the trial Court is clearly unsustainable.

10. In view of the above, revision petition is allowed and the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed to place replication on record. The trial Court shall now proceed in accordance with law.