ORDER :

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.)

Since both these Revisions arise out of the same suit between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The petitioner in both these Revisions is plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal, at Hyderabad.

The plea of petitioner/ plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 2019

3. He had filed the said suit against respondents for a perpetual injunction restraining respondent nos.1 and 2 from removing or interfering with plaintiff in performance and discharge of functions and duties of Imam-Khateeb of Masjid-e-Zorawar Khan situate at Hanuman Tekdi, Abids, Hyderabad.

4. The respondent nos.1 and 2 filed a Written Statement.

I.A.No.20 of 2019

5. The petitioner had also filed I.A.No.20 of 2019 in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 for an ad interim injunction restraining respondents from removing or interfering with petitioner in performance of functions and duties of Imam-Khateeb of Masjid-e-Zorawar Khan.

6. Even to this application, counter-affidavits were filed by respondent nos.1 and 2.

I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2021

7. The petitioner then filed Interlocutory Application No.5 of 2021 under Order VIII Rule 9 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 for grant of relief to permit him to file a rejoinder to the Written Statement filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 and another Interlocutory Application No.6 of 2021 also invoking Order VIII Rule 9 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 to permit him to file a reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 in Interlocutory Application No.20 of 2019.

8. It is the contention of petitioner in Interlocutory Application Nos.5 and 6 of 2021 that in the Written Statement and Counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in the suit and in Interlocutory Application No.20 of 2019, they misrepresented certain facts and it is necessary for him to file a rejoinder to the Written Statement and Reply to the said counter-affidavit in order to bring true facts to the notice of the Court.

9. No counter-affidavit was filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 opposing this application.

Order dt.12.1.2021 in IA.No.5 and 6 of 2021

10. By separate orders dt.12.01.2021, the Court below dismissed both Interlocutory Application Nos.5 and 6 of 2021.

11. The Court below observed in the impugned orders that the ground raised by the petitioner about misrepresentation of facts by respondent nos.1 and 2 is not a sufficient ground to permit petitioner to file a reply-affidavit. It then quoted that Order VIII Rule 9 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 and observed that only in case of a set off or counter-claim, a party is entitled to file a rejoinder or reply-affidavit, and that it is necessary for petitioner to satisfy the Tribunal that there are sufficient grounds permitting him to file the same. It further observed that relief claimed in the suit and in Interlocutory Application No.20 of 2019 is for perpetual injunction and temporary injunction respectively, and the proposed reply-affidavit or rejoinder would not help shorten the litigation, and is not required to be filed in order to do complete justice between the parties. It distinguished the decision cited by petitioner reported in Aloor Subrahmanyam vs. Suthram Prabhakar and others , 2012 (3) A.L.D. 202 which had taken view that ordinarily subsequent pleadings can be permitted, but refused to apply it to the instant case on the ground that under the guise of such petitions, parties cannot be permitted to indulge in fil