The provisions contained in Order 8, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code do not compel the plaintiff to file a rejoinder challenging the allegations made in the written statement. The failure to file a rejoinder cannot be treated as an admission of the plea in the written statement.

A.G. Qureshi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11-2-1988 passed by the District Judge, Ujjain in C. S. No. 8-A 1985, whereby the interim application No. 10 filed Under Order 8, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code was disallowed by the learned District Judge.

2. The facts leading to this revision petition, in short, are that the respondent in the present petition has filed civil suit against the present petitioner for taking back the possession of the house on the ground that the defendant-petitioner is a licensee in the house and the house is of the ownership of the plaintiff. The house was given to the defendant by the plaintiff in view of their cordial relations and partnership in the business. However, later on their relations became strained and, therefore, after revoking the licence, the plaintiff wanted the possession of the suit house from the defendant.

3. The defendant resisted the suit raising multi-pronged pleas including a plea that the suit house was given by way of oral gift to the defendant and has also pleaded that with the consent of the plaintiff he has spent a substantial amount on the repairs of the house. After filing the written statement, the defendant moved an application Under Order 8, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code making a prayer therein that the plaintiff be asked to file a rejoinder in respect of the averment made in the written statement by the defendant.

4. The learned lower Court after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties disallowed the application holding that the pleadings of the parties are unambiguous and, therefore, it is not necessary to give any direction to the plaintiff to file an additional written statement by way of rejoinder. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order this revision petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner Shri S. D. Sanghi has strenuously argued that in view of the pleadings of the defendant in the written statement the Court should have directed the plaintiff to file a rejoinder because if a rejoinder is not sought in view of the averments of the defendant, then the defendant would not know the case of the plaintiff in respect of the pleas raised by the defendant in respect of Hiba (oral gift) and expenditure on the repairs incurred by the defendant on the suit house with the consent of the plaintiff.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent Shri A. K. Jain, supporting the finding of the learned District Judge argued that the pleadings of the parties are unambiguous and there is no question of directing the plaintiff to file a rejoinder.

7. In support of his arguments Shri Sanghi has cited one Division Bench Authority of the Madhya Bharat High Court and a judgment of the Supreme Court. Let me first deal with the aforesaid two judgments. A Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court in the case of Bhagirath v. Champalal, 1956 MPLJ 416, has held that when the contention of the defendant is that lease was granted in his favour after determining tenancy of the plaintiff and after giving him an opportunity to redeem, the plaintiff should have filed a rejoinder to support his contention that the patta granted to the defendant did not affect his right to redeem. There were four cases and in each case the defendant had contested the suit mainly on the ground that the patta which he had obtained from the landlord, was given to him by the landlord, after determining the tenancy of the plaintiff and after giving notice and opportunity to the plaintiff for redemption of the mortgage property. The Court, therefore, felt necessary that in order to support his contention that the patta granted by the landlord to the defendant had no effect on his right to redeem the property and that the mortgage was subsisting and the mortgagee had obtained the lease from the landlord by taking advantage of his possession as a mortgagee in possession of the land should have filed a rejoinder. As such in