Once the Court permits the filing of a replication, the same would be treated as part of the record.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders dated 19.12.2018 and 12.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby the two replications filed by the petitioners, though having permitted to be filed, but it has been stated in the impugned order dated 12.02.2019 that the same would not be part of the pleadings.

2. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.3 and filed his memorandum of appearance. Same is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that once replication is permitted to be filed it is to be treated as part of the pleadings as defined under Order 6 Rule 1 CPC. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments :

1. K. Laxmanan Vs. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors. [2009(1) RCR (Civil) 389]

2. Rajesh Devan Vs. Soma Wati Aggarwal [2008(1) RCR (Civil) 411]

3. Hakam Singh Vs. Jagir Singh & Ors. [1991(2) RRR 170]

4. Ghanshyam Vs. Vikram & Ors. [2006(4) RCR (Civil) 334]

5. Surinder Kumar Singal Vs. Raj Kumar Singal & Anr. [2021(3) RCR (Civil) 145]

6. Seema Rani Vs. Kuldip Singh & Anr. [2018(5) RCR (Civil) 820]

7. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa Vs. Jasdev Singh [2015(5) RCR (Civil) 589]

8. Pritam Singh Vs. Jagdish Pal Singh [2001(4) RCR (Civil) 293]

9. Ajit Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [1998(2) RCR (Civil) 236]

10. Kalpana Vs. Hemendra Pratap Singh [2007(1) RCR (Civil) 365]

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would contend that on 19.12.2018 a statement had been made by the counsel for the petitioners that he did not wish to file a replication and hence the replication, if any, filed could not have been taken on the record.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, no doubt a statement had been made as noticed in the order dated 19.12.2018 that no replication was to be filed but subsequently the replications were filed as noticed in the order dated 12.02.2019. However, vide the impugned order dated 12.02.2019 it has been stated that the same would not become part of the pleadings.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Laxmanan (supra) has held as under :

"31. Pleadings as we understand under the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the "Code") and as is defined under the provision of Rule 1 Order VI of the Code consist only of a plaint and a written statement. The respondents/plaintiff could have filed a replication in respect to the plea raised in the written statement, which if allowed by the court would have become the part of the pleadings, but mere non filing of a replication does not and could not mean that there has been admission of the facts pleaded in the written statement. The specific objection in the form of denial was raised in affidavits filed in respect of the injunction applications which were accepted on record by the Trial Court and moreover the acceptance on record of the said affidavit was neither challenged nor questioned by the present appellant."

In the case of Rajesh Devan (supra) it has been held as under :

"19. Mr. V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, contended that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are not open to challenge in the Regular Second Appeal. Learned senior counsel for the respondent contended that the factum of the shops in dispute having been constructed in March 1985 cannot be disputed in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Salig Ram and another v. Shiv Shankar and others, AIR 1971 Punjab and Haryana 437, wherein it has been held that the replication is part of the pleadings and anything which is specifically stated therein and for the first time, has to be controverted and if the same is not controverted and allowed to pass, it must be assumed that the plea raised in replication was accepted. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff respondent w