The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review is not an inherent power and is subject to the limitations of Section 114 and Order-47, Rule-1 of CPC. A review can only be allowed for a patent error, and it is not an appeal in disguise.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 29.12.2021 in IA No.1061 of 2021 in IA No.891 of 2021 in OS No.898 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. A common order dated 29.12.2021 was passed in IA No.1061 of 2021 in IA No.891 of 2021, IA No.1062 of 2021 in IA No.892 of 2021 and IA No.1063 of 2021 in IA No.893 of 2021 in OS No.898 of 2001. However, the petitioners/ respondents 3 to 11/defendants 3 to 11 have assailed the orders in IA No.1061 of 2021 in IA No.891 of 2021 in OS No.898 of 2001, through this Civil Revision Petition.

3. IA No.1061 of 2021 was filed under Order-47, Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) to review the order dated 29.11.2021 passed in IA No.891 of 2021 in OS No.898 of 2001 and to take the rejoinder on record. IA No.891 of 2021 was filed under Order-VIII, Rule-9 of CPC to permit the plaintiff to file rejoinder to the plaint in the original suit in the interest of justice.

4. Similarly, IA Nos.892 and 893 of 2021 were also filed for identical relief. All those three applications were dismissed by the trial Court, through the common order dated 29.11.2021. Since it is a short common order, the relevant portions from paragraph Nos.4 to 6 is extracted as under, for the sake of convenience.

“4. The entire provision of law says that on filing of written statement or additional written statement, if at all there is any counter to be given to the pleadings put forth by the defendant through his written statement or additional written statement, the plaintiff may be permitted to file rejoinder. On perusal of documents available it can be perceived that already the plaint was amended and in fact the suit is pending since 2001 and now in the year 2021 the plaintiff files a petition for rejoinder without there being specific reasons assigned. On perusal it is also seen that no rejoinder copy is filed along with the petition to even peruse as to what facts they need to reply. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner/plaintiff had argued that only if the petition is allowed they would be in a position to file the rejoinder in the court. But per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents/defendants has argued that they are served with a copy of rejoinder which runs into voluminous number of pages with new facts, which in fact could not be perceived by this court as the copy of said rejoinder is not available with court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner/plaintiff has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Aloor Subrahmanyam Vs. Suthram Prabhakar and others (CRP No.5008 of 2011) wherein it was held that it is on the courts to take a wide view while allowing these kind of petitions to avoid multiplicity of pleadings and to decide the cases comprehensively and effectively all the questions arises in the case. Another judgment is also filed of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Malgireddy Venkata Ramana Vs. Thippana Narsi Reddy (AIR 2010 AP 114) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has categorically stated that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC cannot be treated as one under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the plaintiff can be permitted to file rejoinder to explain the additional facts which has been incorporated in the written statement but however, now new facts can be permitted to put forth. In the absence of filing of rejoinder along with petition to ascertain whether the said rejoinder confines only to reply to written statement and additional written statement, it may not be proper to allow petition blanket permitting the plaintiff to file rejoinder wherein there is every chance to incorporate a new fact.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/defendants are argued that if at all new fact is pleaded by the petitioner/plaintiff through his rejoinder, the defendant would loose his right to place his defence to the said new fact as