Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral) - Pleadings in the civil suits are restricted to plaints and written statements. After the issues are framed, replication cannot be filed as a matter of right to controvert the pleas taken in the written statement. Pleas taken in the written statement which are new can only lead to framing issues. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application for permission to place replication on record. The written statement was filed on 25.07.2011. Thereafter, the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed and the Appellate Court has upheld that order. It will remain open to the petitioner, who is plaintiff in the suit, to lead whatever evidence he has in respect of entitlement to a decree on the basis of pleadings as existing and on the issues framed, the onus of which is upon him.

2. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Hakam Singh v. Jagir Singh and others 1991(2) RRR 170 : 1991 CivCC 408 has no application to the facts of this case. A perusal of the facts as come from the decision of the learned Single Judge appears to show that during the course of the trial, the respondents filed two applications respectively praying that either they should be allowed to amend their written statement to controvert the stand of the petitioner raised in the replication or they be allowed to file rejoinder to the replication. In such circumstances, it can be assumed that in that case replication was allowed to be taken on record in the discretion of the Court and, therefore, judgment proceeded to uphold the orders of the trial Court. The Court considered the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC which provide that in a given case the Court may, upon such terms as it thinks fit, require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties. The Court has recorded that it is no doubt true that no replication can be filed by the plaintiff to a written statement as a matter of right but once it is so permitted to be filed, it becomes part of the pleadings and in a case in which written statement raises a counter claim or set off is pleaded, the plaintiff should normally be entitled to file a replication to the same. The facts are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

3. No ground is made out warranting interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Rajpura.

Dismissed.

---------0.B.S.0------------

—————————