[2026:RJ-JD:10467]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2876/2026 Chenaram S/o Shri Jetharam, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Samdari, Tehsil Samdari, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Devaram S/o Shri Jetharam, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Samdari, Tehsil Samdari,district Balotra, Rajasthan.

2. Sub-Registration Officer, Tehsil Office, Samdari, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Suthar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

25/02/2026

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner–plaintiff has assailed the order dated 07.01.2026 (Annx.5) passed by the learned District Judge, Balotra in Civil Original Suit No. 43/2024 (Chenaram vs. Devaram & Anr.), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. seeking permission to place subsequent pleadings (rejoinder) on record, has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner instituted a civil suit for partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, a residential pattasud land, originally allotted in the name of Late Jetharam, who had constructed shops and residential portions thereon. Upon his intestate demise on 13.10.2023 (his wife having predeceased him), the property is stated to have devolved equally upon his two sons, the petitioner and respondent No.1, each holding a one-half share.

4. It is the petitioner’s case that both parties continued in joint possession and jointly collected rental income. However, respondent No.1 subsequently attempted to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and asserted exclusive ownership on the basis of an alleged forged Will purportedly executed by Late Jetharam.

5. It is further submitted that respondent No.1, in his written statement, pleaded that the property was the self-acquired property of Late Jetharam; that the petitioner had separated long ago and had been allotted separate property; and that a registered Will dated 08.04.2022 had been executed by Jetharam in favour of the defendant Devaram, pursuant to which Pattas Nos. 24, 25 and 26 dated 08.10.2023 were issued in his name.

6. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to file a rejoinder to specifically deny the new pleas introduced in the written statement, namely, the execution of the registered Will, issuance of pattas in favour of the defendant and the claim of exclusive ownership. The application was opposed by the defendant. The learned trial court, by order dated 07.01.2026, rejected the application holding that the written statement did not introduce any new facts, that the proposed rejoinder was merely clarificatory in nature, that non-filing of a rejoinder does not amount to admission, and that the application appeared to have been filed to delay the proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court possesses discretion to permit subsequent pleadings where the interests of justice so require. It is argued that the written statement introduced entirely new facts, particularly with respect to the alleged registered Will dated 08.04.2022, issuance of pattas in favour of the defendant and his claim of exclusive ownership and possession. These pleas, it is submitted, strike at the root of the title and materially change the nature of the controversy.

8. It is further contended that under Order VIII Rules 3 to 5 of C.P.C., material allegations must be specifically traversed and failure to do so may prejudice the plaintiff’s case. Denial of an opportunity to file a rejoinder, therefore, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and deprives the petitioner of the right to rebut the new defence. It is also submitted that written statement was filed only on 01.07.2025 and immed