ORDER

These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging the orders dated 12.09.2013 & 19.02.2014 respectively, whereby application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC has been rejected and the rejoinder which the petitioners had proposed to file, has been declined to be taken on record by the Court below.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed the amended plaint and after amendment was permitted, the defendants filed their written statement to the amended plaint.

3. Learned counsel submitted that in the written statement apart from denying contents of the plaint, the defendants also had taken additional pleas in their written statement and as such it had become necessary for the petitioners to file rejoinder.

4. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the new facts which had come on record in additional pleas it, had become imperative that rejoinder be filed and certain new facts were required to be controverted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has wrongly recorded a finding that no new facts had come in the amended written statement of which proper rejoinder was required to be