IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1353 of 2022 DATED THE 16^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Mote Sathaiah, S/o Agamaiah

… Petitioner/plaintiff

And

Jamalapuram Rajaiah, S/o Laxmoji

... Respondent/defendant

ORDER:

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 27.04.2022 passed in I.A.No.204 of 2022 in O.S.No.158 of 2021 by

the learned Junior Civil Judge at Choutuppal.

2. Petitioner herein is the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent herein is the respondent-defendant in I.A.No.204 of 2022 in

O.S.No.158 of 2021.

3. Petitioner has filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent restraining him, his agents, servants and workmen from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit scheduled property i.e., open House plots bearing No.1A and 1B along with residential House bearing No.3-330/1G/2D, within

Survey No.236/ఇ/3 total admeasuring 116 square yards situated at Choutuppal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, bounded by North: land of vendor-Smt.Deshagoni Yadamma, South: Plot No.1, East: Plot No.42/A of Mr.M.Sathaiah (plaintiff) and West:

Choutuppal to Nagaram Road.

4. Respondent, who is the defendant in the suit, has filed his written statement on 06.02.2012 stating that he has purchased plot Nos.1 and 2 admeasuring 90 square yards through a registered sale deed bearing document No.478 of 1996, dated 05.02.1996 with boundaries as East: Plot No.42, West: Nagaram Road, North: 24 feet road and South: Plot of Mr.Narra Yadaiah and also purchased another plot bearing No.42-A through registered sale deed document No.473/96 admeasuring 100 Square Yards with boundaries as East: 18 feet road, West: Plot Nos.1 and 2 purchased by the defendant, North: 24 feet road, South: Plot of Mr.Narra Yadaiah along with counter claim and sought for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to remove the construction in the area left for the road on the North of the defendant’s plot Nos.1, 2 and 42-A in Sy.Nos.236 and 237 of Choutuppal Village and Mandal.

5. The petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.204 of 2022 stating that respondent-defendant has filed his written statement along with counter claim and paid Court fee and the petitioner has to file his rejoinder i.e., reply to counter-claim to deny his case. He could not file rejoinder previously but in the above case no trial is started and issues are framed on the last date of hearing and requested the Court to permit him to file rejoinder and contest the counter-claim.

6. The respondent-defendant has filed his counter in the application and contended that as per Rule 6(G) of Order VIII of C.P.C., the rules relating to the written statement filed by the defendant shall apply to the written statement filed in answer to the counter-claim. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner is barred under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. The respondent-defendant has filed his written statement in the year 2012 and no case is made out by the petitioner-plaintiff to grant leave of the Court to file rejoinder to the counter-claim after a period of 10 years.

7. The learned trail Court after going though the material on record has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on the premise that no sufficient grounds are made out in the application in seeking permission to file rejoinder.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in not granting permission to the petitioner- plaintiff to file his rejoinder to the counter-claim filed by the respondent-defendant. The learned trial Court grossly erred in ignoring Rule 9 of Order VIII of CPC, which empowers the Court to permit the parties to file additional pleadings subsequently to the written statement. The Court can also ask the parties to file additional pleadings, if necessary. But the learned