Back
2013 Supreme(All) 268
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Kiran Chaudhary and Another -Appellant
Versus
Jay Prakash Chaudhary -Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3436 of 2013
Decided On : 23-01-2013
Jai Prakash Chaudhary for the Petition#31;ers
S.P. Pandey-II for the Respondent.
Accepting replication does not result in accepting new pleadings, but only supplements the plaint in view of new facts stated in the written statement.
Headnote:
Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. - Pleadings and Replication - The court clarified that replication or additional written statement are both part of the pleadings included within the plaint and the written statement. By accepting replication, no new pleadings are being accepted but only the plaint is being supplemented in view of the new facts stated in the written statement. The order accepting the replica on record is an interlocutory order and it does not in any way decide any rights of the parties which may result in miscarriage of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The trial Court accepted the replication of the plaintiff respondent, which was upheld by the revisional Court. The petitioners, as defendants, argued that no pleadings after the filing of written statement can be taken on record as per Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that accepting replication does not result in accepting new pleadings, but only supplements the plaint in view of new facts stated in the written statement. The court emphasized that the order accepting the replica on record is an interlocutory order and does not decide any rights of the parties that may result in miscarriage of justice.
Issues: Acceptance of replication after the filing of written statement, interpretation of Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that replication or additional written statement are part of the pleadings included within the plaint and the written statement. Accepting replication does not mean accepting new pleadings, but only supplements the plaint in view of new facts stated in the written statement.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Petitioners are defendants in the suit. The trial Court vide order dated 30.3.2012 has accepted the replication of the plain#31;tiff respondent and the said order has been upheld by the revisional Court vide order dated 22.11.2012.
2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. no pleadings after the filing of written statement can be taken on record.
3. Pleadings generally refer to a state#31;ment of the case/claim which is a plaintand the statement of defence of the other side which is called written statement. However, the Court at times may require the parties to file further statements to supplement their plaint case or written statement. Such subsequent statements are normally referable to replication/re#31;joinder, in case of the plaintiff and addi#31;tional written statement in case of the defendant.
Sometimes, additional written state#31;ment is necessary on the amendment of the plaint. Similarly, on the amendment of the written statement, the plaintiff may file additional statement which is again called replication. A replication by the plaintiff is also necessary when new facts are stated in the written statement which require to be replied by the plaintiff.
4. In view of the above, replication or additional written statement are both part of the pleadings included within the plaint and the written statement.
Accordingly, by accepting replication no new pleadings are being accepted but only the plaint is being supplemented in view of the new facts stated in written statement.
It is not the case that the replica is not necessary.
The order accepting the replica on record is an interlocutory order and it does not in any way decide any rights of the parties which may result in miscarriage of justice.
In view of above, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
_____________
