[2026:RJ-JD:7587]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19358/2025 Nirmal Kumar S/o Shri Askaran Ji Biyani, Aged About 75 Years, R/o 110, Rajendra Marg, Ward No. 29, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Manjula Rani Dhoot W/o Shri Jagdishchandra Dhoot, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Near Nenawati Temple, Pur Tehsil And District District Bhilwara.

2. Garima Agrawal D/o Shri Banwari Agrawal, R/o 37, Basant Vihar, Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara.

3. Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara, Through Commissioner Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anul Sahlot with Ms. Deepika Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Somani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

11/02/2026

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has led a challenge to the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (West) Bhilwara in Civil Suit No. 29/2022 (Nirmal Kumar Biyani vs. Manjula Rani Dhoot & Ors.) vide which the application preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. seeking to take rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC seeking permission to file a rejoinder. It is contended that the respondents’ written statement is based on false and incorrect assertions. They have wrongly stated that a Murabba Gaz measures 3 feet, whereas it consistently measures 2 feet. The claim that disputed land is subject to a pending second appeal before the Rajasthan High Court is also incorrect, as the said appeal relates to a different property.

It is further contended that defendants-respondents have falsely claimed the existence of a 10 feet wide lane in front of their property, though the lane forms part of land of the patta purchased by the plaintiff, with full ownership and possession. The denial of two doors on the western side of the plaintiff’s property, which have existed for over 50 years and provide lawful easement rights, is also misleading. It is additionally contended that disputed land forms part of a road under the Municipal Council, Bhilwara and not defendants 1 and 2, who, in collusion with defendant 3, are attempting unauthorized actions. Therefore, it is urged that filing the rejoinder is necessary to place the true facts before the Court for proper adjudication.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that plaintiff’s claim regarding measurement of the Murabba Gaz is incorrect and that issue is already under consideration in a second appeal pending before the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. It is argued that the plaintiff has himself referred to the disputed lane in the said appeal and unlawfully installed a door on the wall of the lane during its pendency, against which a stay order was granted.

It is further contended that present case is not distinct from the pending second appeal, contrary to the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff has allegedly stated false facts regarding ownership of the lane and the existence of doors on the western side. The doors were unlawfully installed during the pendency of the appeal, and there is no evidence of their existence for over 50 years or of any lawful easementary right. The present application, it is submitted, merely seeks to cure defects in the original suit without introducing any new facts.

5. I have considered rival submissions and carefully examined the material available on record.

6. Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC provides that 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 presented except by leave of the Court. The provision makes it clear that filing of a rejoinder is not a matter of right and the same can be permitted only when the Court is satisfied that such subsequent pleading is necessary for effectively adjudicating the real controversy,