2023 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 27698
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J, ALOK ARADHE, CJ
Ajay Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
M/s Integrated Finance Company Ltd – Respondent
CRP/1906/2023
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1906 of 2023
ORDER:
(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. M.S. Farhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this Civil Revision Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge of Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge For Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commercial Court’) by which the application namely, C.E.A.No.91 of 2022 in C.E.P.No.47 of 2017, seeking leave to file surrejoinder has been dismissed.
4. Facts giving rise for filing of this Civil Revision Petition briefly stated are that respondent No.1 filed Commercial Execution Petition No.47 of 2017 seeking to enforce judgment and decree dated 30.10.2006 in O.S.No.588 of 2000 for a sum of Rs.5,41,90,053/-. The petitioner filed a detailed counter affidavit. Thereupon, respondent No.1 filed a detailed rejoinder along with an application, namely, C.E.A.No.8 of 2022 in C.E.P.No.47 of 2017, to receive the rejoinder. The aforesaid application was allowed on 01.04.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.E.A.No.91 of 2022 for taking the surrejoinder on record.
5. The Commercial Court by an order dated 10.03.2023 has rejected C.E.A.No.91 of 2022 on the ground that subsequent pleadings cannot be permitted as a matter of course. It has further been held that the original pleas cannot be permitted to be altered in the form of surrejoinder and the petitioner cannot be permitted to file surrejoinder only to deny the pleadings in the rejoinder.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to a chart mentioned in para 12 of the Civil Revision Petition to show the pleas which have been taken by the petitioner/judgment debtor No.2 in the rejoinder as well as the reply which has been filed by the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Commercial Court.
8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides.
9. There is no explicit provision under the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to filing of rejoinders and surrejoinders. However, Order VIII Rule 9 CPC permits subsequent pleadings to be filed with the leave of the Court.
10. The relevant extract of para 12 of the Civil Revision Petition reads as under:
S.No.
New plea raised by Respondent No.1 herein/DHR in its Rejoinder
Rele vant Para No.
Answer/Reply given by the Petitioner herein/JDR No.2 in his Sur-Rejoinder
Rele vant Para No.
1.
Petitioner herein/JDR No.2 has knowledge about the passing of the decree; Petitioner herein/JDR No.2 is liable for perjury and contempt.
3(a)
Petitioner herein/JDR No.2 did not have knowledge about the same and that the Respondent No.1/DHR is only harping upon the same.
4
2.
Respondent No.1 / DHR made a new allegation that petitioner herein/JDR No.2 had given personal guarantee for Hire Purchase Agreement on behalf of respondent No.2 herein and that respondent No.1/DHR took steps to serve suit notice in C.S.No.588 of 2000 on various dates and the same
4
The respondent No.1/DHR is a court bird and is into the habit of filing frivolous cases and prolonging litigation only to harass, threaten its opposite parties and that the petitioner herein / JDR No.2 never gave personal guarantee for the Hire Purchase Agreement and that he never kept away from the
5
could not be served as petitioner herein/JDR No.2 was keeping away from service of notice.
service of notice.
3.