Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA, J.
Sunita - Petitioner
Versus
Bajinder Kumar - Respondent
CM(M) 169 of 2026, CM APPL. 4386 of 2026
Decided On : 15-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shakir Mahmood, Ms. Falguni Rai, Advs. along with the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Beniwal, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, Advs.

A replication is not a matter of routine and requires court permission, which is granted when necessary to address specific new matters in the written statement. While leave is mandatory, a separate formal application is not required if the court, upon reviewing the pleadings, finds the replication necessary.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 9 - Subsequent pleadings - Replication - Leave of Court - Filing of a replication by a plaintiff is not a matter of right or routine and requires the leave of the court - A replication is generally filed to explain or counter new facts or defensive pleas raised by the defendant, often referred to as 'confession and avoidance' - There is no mandatory procedural mandate requiring a separate formal application for leave to file a replication, provided the proposed document is placed before the court for its consideration and the court applies its mind to the necessity of such filing. (Paras 13, 14, 17)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - High Court’s scope of interference is restricted to cases of procedural illegality or lack of application of mind - Where a trial court has explicitly considered the necessity of a replication to address disputed facts, the discretion exercised by such court warrants no interference. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the trial court which permitted the filing of a replication by the respondent to the written statement. The petitioner contended that the replication was accepted in a routine manner without a specific application for leave, and that the trial court failed to record sufficient reasons for granting such permission. The respondent argued that the replication was essential to address specific averments in the written statement that were contrary to the record.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the trial court was satisfied that the replication was necessary to explain specific contentions raised in the written statement, particularly regarding the site plan and property documentation. The court held that no separate application is strictly required under the procedural law so long as the trial court, upon scrutinizing the pleadings, confirms the necessity of the filing. It was noted that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion.

Issues: The primary issues were whether a replication could be permitted without a formal application, whether the trial court acted in a mechanical manner, and the legal threshold for granting leave for subsequent pleadings.

Ratio Decidendi: Leave to file a replication is a judicial prerogative; it is granted only when the presiding judge is satisfied that a party needs to offer a response to new, specific defensive matters raised in the preceding pleading. The procedural code does not demand a separate application if the court, after examining the existing pleadings, finds a legitimate need for clarification to effectively adjudicate the suit.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and history of the litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties' contentions regarding the propriety of filing a replication under order viii rule 9 cpc. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. legal requirements and judicial guidelines for granting leave to file a replication. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. application of legal principles to determine the necessity of a replication for effective adjudication. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. final confirmation of the trial court's order and dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J

1. The present Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking setting aside and quashing of the order dated 29.10.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”) in CS SCJ 798/25 (“Suit”), whereby the learned Trial Court inter alia allowed the Respondent to file Replication to the Petitioner’s Written Statement, as well as its Rejoinder to the Petitioner’s Reply to the Application seeking interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") and further declined to allow the Petitioner to file Rejoinder to the Replication.

2. The Petitioner is Defendant No. 1, and the Respondent is the Plaintiff in the Suit.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. On 31.05.2025, the Respondent instituted the Suit before the learned Trial Court, inter alia, seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions restraining the Petitioner and Defendant No. 2 therein from carrying out any illegal construction in any portion of the Suit Property bearing No. 2185/8, Khasra No. 375, Khampur Raya, Guru Arjun Nagar, New Delhi (“Suit Property”).

4. Vide order dated 02.09.2025, the learned Trial Court condoned the delay of 13 days in filing the Written Statement by the Petitioner and took the same on record. The learned Trial Court further directed the Respondent to file its Replication, if any, on or before the next date of hearing.

5. Thereafter, vide the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court permitted the Respondent to file its Replication to the Petitioner’s Written Statement and Rejoinder to the Petitioner’s Reply to the Application. The learned Trial Court further directed that the said Replication and Rejoinder be taken on record and rejected the request of the Petitioner to file Rejoinder to the Replication filed by the Respondent.

6. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition, being C.R.P. 336/2025, before this Court assailing the Impugned Order. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.11.2025, with liberty granted to the Petitioner to avail of an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the present Petition has been instituted assailing the Impugned Order passed by the learned Trial Court in the Suit.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner advanced the following submissions:

7.1. Under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, no pleading subsequent to filing of the Written Statement by the Defendant may be presented except with the leave of the Court.

7.2. The Impugned Order does not disclose any reasons justifying the filing of a Replication by the Respondent in the Suit. It is well settled that a Replication cannot be taken on record as a matter of routine, and permission for the same ought to be granted sparingly.

7.3. No application was filed by the Respondent pursuant to which the Replication could have been taken on record. Accordingly, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court permitted the filing of the Replication in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh and Others , (2024) 9 SCC 353.

7.4. The learned Trial Court arbitrarily declined the Petitioner’s request to file a Rejoinder in resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHITEJAS KARIA, J.Sunita - PetitionerVersusBajinder Kumar - RespondentCM(M) 169 of 2026, CM APPL. 4386 of 2026Decided On : 15-06-2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA, J.
Sunita - Petitioner
Versus
Bajinder Kumar - Respondent
CM(M) 169 of 2026, CM APPL. 4386 of 2026
Decided On : 15-06-2026