An application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to file a replication to a written statement must be self-contained and indicate the factual matters in the written statement that require the filing of a replication.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9509/2022

Abdul Sattar S/o Sh Roshandeen, age 68 Years, R/o Deedwana,

District Nagaur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Gulam Rasool S/o Shri Sarajudeen, R/o Outside Nagori

Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

2.

Noor Mohd. S/o Shri Sarajudeen, R/o Outside Nagori

Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3.

Moinudeen S/o Shri Sarajudeen, through his legal heirs:

3/1.

Gulshan Bano W/o Sh. Moinudeen, R/o Outside Nagori

Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3/2.

Zakir Hussain S/o Sh. Moinudeen, R/o Outside Nagori

Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3/3.

Nazma D/o Sh. Moinudeen W/o Sh. Zia-Ul-Haq, R/o

Outside Nagori Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3/4.

Akhtar Hussain S/o Sh. Moinudeen, R/o Outside Nagori

Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3/5.

Fazludeen S/o Sh Moinudeen, R/o Outside Nagori Gate,

Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3/6.

Razia D/o Sh. Moinudeen W/o Sh. Asif, R/o Outside

Nagori Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3/7.

Ali Hussain S/o Sh. Moinudeen, R/o Outside Nagori Gate,

Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3/8.

Rubeena Bano D/o Sh. Moinudeen, R/o Outside Nagori

Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3/9.

Zafar Hussain S/o Sh. Moinudeen, R/o Outside Nagori

Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

4.

Abdul Salam S/o Sh. Sarajudeen, R/o Outside Nagori

Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

5.

Abdul Aziz S/o Sh. Sarajudeen, R/o Outside Nagori Gate,

Deedwana, District Nagaur.

6.

Nisar Ahmed S/o Sh. Roshandeen, R/o Outside Nagori

Gate, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

(2 of 3)

[CW-9509/2022]

7.

Mohd. Iqbal S/o Sh. Ramzan, R/o Outside Nagori Gate,

Deedwana, District Nagaur.

8.

Municipal Board, Deedwana, through its Executive Officer,

Municipal Board, Deedwana.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sanjay Mathur.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

09/01/2023

Heard.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

of the order dated 06.05.2022 (Annex.5) passed by trial court,

whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 9

CPC, has been rejected.

The trial court by its order impugned came to the conclusion

that in the application, the petitioner has not detailed as to what

has been contained in the written statement, which required filing

of the replication and consequently rejected the application.

Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that alongwith

application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, the petitioner had

filed draft replication and, therefore, the trial court was not

justified in rejecting the application.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the petitioner.

A perusal of the application (Annex.4) filed under Order VIII

Rule 9 CPC reveals that the same is wholly cursory, as the

petitioner has simply indicated the requirement of Order VIII Rule

9 CPC without indicating as to what factually was indicated in the

(3 of 3)

[CW-9509/2022]

written statement, which required filing of the replication. Though

it is claimed that the draft replication has been filed, however, the

same has not been placed on record of the present writ petition.

Even if the draft replication was filed, it is not expected of

the trial court to compare the written statement and the

replication, to find out as to whether the replication was required

to be accepted or not.

The application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC should

have been self-contained and in absence thereof, the order passed

by the trial court does not call for any interference. There is no

substance in the writ petition.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

29-DJ/-