Whether approved for reporting¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment??

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

1. The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the le arned Senior Civil Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P, whereby the petitioner’s right to file rejoinder to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.PC has been closed vide its order dated 07.01.2025 and subsequent order dated 18.01.2025, whereby the application filed under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.PC for the grant of necessary leave to file supplementary pleadings by way of rejoinder to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C was rejected .

2. The facts of the case are that the present plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of permanent, perpetual and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, family members, servants etc. from interfering, creating nuisance, claiming any right over the residential houses and the suit land compriPsing in Khata No.129 min, Khatauni No. 164 Min. Khasra Nos 1043,1044,1084 area measuring 00-20-49 hec.Khata No. 132 Min Khatauni No. 167 Min, Khasra Nos 1083 area measuring 00-06-57 hectares situated in Mohal Shivpuri Patwar Circle, Samonoli, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra H.P. Alongwith the plaint an app lication under Order 39 Rule 1& 2 of C.P.C was also filed. r

3. The defendants filed written statement and the same was taken on record. In the present petition the copy of the same has been plaCced on record as Ext.P-3. Similarly, reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C was also filed by the defendants on 29.09.2024. Though, it is an admitted fact that numerous opportunities were granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to file the rejoinder to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. However, the same could not be filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned trial Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to file the rejoinder and subsequently the application under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C has also been dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that delay in filing the rejoinder to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C is on account of the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff was waiting for the written statement so that all the averments as made in the written statement are covered in the rejoinder. He further submits that the Court below hPas adopted a hypertechnical approach, and instead of considering the application, the same has been rejected summarily.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file caroefully.

6. From the perusal of the order sheets, impugned orders as challenged in the presernt proceedings,there is no infirmity in the impugned orders, however, as a matter of indulgence and in order to do substantial justice, the petitioner is permitted to file rejoinder to the applCication under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C within a period of four week from today, positively. The indulgence is being shown to the petitioner subject to the payment of cost of Rs.15000/- to the respondent.

7. Consequently, the present petition is disposed off by granting one opportunity to the petitioner to file rejoinder within a period of four weeks from today. The learned trial Court is directed to take up the matter on 05.05.2026 and to proceed in the matter accordingly.

8. It is made clear that in case cost of Rs.15,000/- is not paid by the petitioner to the respondents, in that event, the benefit of this order shall not be granted to him.

The petition stands disposed off alongwith pending application(s), if any. P