A plaintiff may be granted leave under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file a rejoinder to explain or clarify assertions in a written statement, provided it does not introduce new facts, alter the cause of action, or expand the suit's scope.

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.856 of 2020 in I.A.No.227 of 2020 in O.S.No.52 of 2020 and C.R.P.No.184 of 2021 which is filed being aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.857 of 2020 in O.S.No.52 of 2020. As both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same suit, though the C.R.P.No.206 of 2021 out of I.A.No.856 of 2020 which is filed seeking leave to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed in the I.A.No.227 of 2020, whereas I.A.No.857 of 2020 filed seeking permission to file a rejoinder in the same suit, both the revisions are taken up together as they arise between the same parties and from the same suit.

2. Heard Sri Suhas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Vasudev Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri K.Lakshmi Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred herein as plaintiff and defendant.

Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff who is the respondent herein has filed a suit O.S.No.52 of 2020 seeking a decree in favor of the plaintiff for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Pending suit in I.A.No.27 of 2020 was filed along with the suit under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking interim injunction against the respondent and restraining from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

4. Pending the suit and the said interlocutory application, the plaintiff herein filed the written statement as well as a counter in the interlocutory application. After filing of the written statement and the counter by the defendant, the plaintiff approached the trial Court filing I.A.No.856 of 2020 in I.A.No.227 of 2020 and so also I.A.No.859 of 2020 in O.S.No.52 of 2020 seeking leave of the Court to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed and the written statement. The said application ended in allowing of the application by trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the defendant on the ground that the learned Judge before the trial Court did not appreciate the pleadings and record, and that the order is passed against the principles of natural justice, and that the plaintiff should not be permitted to expand the scope of the case by adding pleadings which were suppressed earlier.

5. It is contended that there were no valid reasons assigned by the respondents in their applications and that the learned Judge did not apply the principles under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. It is further contended that the plaintiff is attempting to introduce new pleadings under the guise of a rejoinder and that the learned Judge failed to consider that the suit being one for injunction simpliciter, title disputes cannot be entertained.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the learned senior counsel for the respondents/defendants, learned counsel for the defendant argued and contended that the plaintiff under the guise of rejoinder wanted to bring new facts though the facts that the petitioner intending to bring on record which are already to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the said aspects which the plaintiff intend to bring on record are being suppressed by the plaintiff and he also pointed out that physically there is no land is existing and that the plaintiffs having the knowledge that there was a development ag