IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

WRIT PETITION NO. 35434 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. H.G.SHEKAR

SON OF LATE H.K.G.SRINIVASAN,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.38, ADJACENT TO ‘A’ BLOCK,

5^TH CROSS, AECS LAYOUT,

BENGALURU-560 037.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. SHOME.H.G.

SON OF LATE H.K.G.SRINIVASAN,

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.98/98,

DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU-560 037.

Digitally signed by S …RESPONDENT

NOORUNNISABEGUM

Location: HIGH

COURT OF THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

KARNTAKA

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2025 MADE ON IA.V FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO. 2945/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-30) PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-E TO THE WP, DISMISS THE SAID

APPLICATION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 22.09.2025 in O.S.No.2945/2018 passed by the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30) (“hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement was allowed. In view of the limited nature of the issue involved, this Court does not deem it apposite to issue notice to the respondent.

2. By the Impugned Order the learned Trial Court after examining Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘C.P.C’) and after examining the law in this behalf has held that an additional pleading can be filed provided they do not take away admissions.

3. The only ground of challenge that is being raised by the petitioner is that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC are only available to the Court in the event of a counter claim or set off and not a Rejoinder/Replication.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. A plain reading of Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC shows that subsequent pleadings to the written statement can be filed, but with the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, in the following manner.

"ORDER VIII [Written statement, set-off and counter-claim]

XXX

9. Subsequent pleadings - No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented 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 statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same."

[Emphasis Supplied]

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Noorul Hassan Vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh and Others, (2024) 9 SCC 353 has clarified this provision and has held that no pleading subsequent to the written statement can be filed without the leave of the Court. It can however be filed where a new matter is introduced in the written statement in the following manner:

“9. Before we deal with the aforesaid issue, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of CPC in relation to pleadings. Order 6 Rule 1 CPC declares that pleading shall mean a plaint and a written statement. Rule 9 of Order 8 specifically edicts that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counterclaim shall be presented except by the leave of the court. Though, however, the court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement.

10. In Anant Construction (P) Ltd. v. Ram Niwas, the High Court of Delhi, in an exhaustive judgment authored by R.C. Lahoti, J. as his Lordship then was, deal