Rejoinders in civil procedure are not routinely permitted; specific needs must justify their filing, particularly to address new issues raised by the defendant.

JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, called out for hearing.

2. Permissibility of filing rejoinder/replication by a Plaintiff to the written statement is the short issue which has attracted attention of this Court. The issue arises out of challenge set up by defendants to the Order dated 22nd October, 2022 passed by the trial court allowing Plaintiff’s application seeking permission to file rejoinder.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1 is the Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 856 of 2017 filed before the 6th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur inter alia seeking partition of the suit property. Plaintiff claims herself to be the wife of late Ganpati Methe. She has given genealogy of Methe family in the plaint claiming that her husband Ganpati is son of Dnyanu Methe and that therefore she is entitled to a share in the suit property.

4. The Defendants appeared in the suit and filed written statement inter alia contending that the Plaintiff is a stranger to Methe family and is not the wife of late Ganpati Methe. After filing of written statement by the Defendants, the Plaintiff filed application on 4th June, 2018 at Exh. 53 seeking permission of the Trial Court to file rejoinder, which was resisted by the Defendants by filing reply. By the order dated 22nd October 2019 impugned in the present petition, the Trial Court has proceeded to allow the application.

5. Appearing for the Petitioner Mr. Deshmukh the learned counsel would submit that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) under which a Plaintiff can file rejoinder after filing of written statement. That pleading in the suit stands completed with filing of written statement and that therefore the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to file any further pleadings in the form of rejoinder. Referring to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code Mr. Deshmukh would contend that Plaintiff’s application does not come within the purview ‘subsequent pleadings’. That even otherwise no case was made out by her for grant of permission to file subsequent pleadings.

6. Per contra, Mr. Koregave the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 5 would oppose the petition and support the order passed by the Trial Court. He would submit that the Defendants raised a new plea in the written statement denying Plaintiff’s marriage with late Ganpati Methe and that therefore it has become essential for her to deal with the said contention by filing a rejoinder. He would rely upon judgment of the Delhi High Court in Anant Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas, 1994 (31) DRJ 205.

7. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.

8. There is no specific provision under the Code which enables filing of a rejoinder by the Plaintiff. In normal circumstances, pleading in a suit are completed by filing of written statement by the Defendant. The Only provision under which pleadings subsequent to filing of written statement can be found is under the provisions of under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code, which reads thus:

9. Subsequent pleadings.

No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be pre- sented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written state- ment or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same.

9. Even under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 the word ‘rejoinder’ is not used. The subsequent pleadings under Order 8, Rule 9 are commonly referred to as ‘replication’. Thus, under Order 8, Rule 9 subsequent pleadings