The grant of leave to file a rejoinder under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC cannot be mechanical; the court must examine the proposed rejoinder alongside the pleadings to determine if it is necessary for clarification or effective adjudication, rather than for introducing new claims or mere traversal.

O R D E R:

1. This Revision is filed by Petitioner - Defendant No.1 in O.S. No. 147 of 2019, assailing the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial in I.A. No.162 of 2024, whereby the trial Court allowed the petition filed by Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC'), and permitted Plaintiff to file a rejoinder/reply to the written statement filed by Petitioner/Defendant No.1.

2. Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff instituted the suit against Petitioner and other Defendants, seeking declaration that he is a co-owner entitled to 1/4th share in Schedule A to C properties as properties of the partnership concern M/s Matrusri Infra; cancellation of certain sale documents and agreements of sale-cum-GPAs executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of third parties; and consequential injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties.

3. The case of Petitioner - Defendant No.1 before the trial Court, as set out in the written statement dated 20.11.2020, is that: he denied the material averments of the plaint and contended inter alia that the suit schedule properties are not partnership properties but individual properties; the suit is bad for non-joinder of partnership firm M/s Matrusri Infra as a party; and Plaintiff is estopped from claiming the reliefs sought. He specifically pleaded, in paragraph No.49 of the written statement, that Plaintiff did not obtain leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC at the time of filing the suit reserving his right to seek further reliefs, and Plaintiff did not choose to seek the relief of dissolution of partnership concern of M/s Matrusri Infra and for rendition of accounts, nor did he array the partnership firm as a party to the suit.

4. The case of Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff before the trial Court, as set out in the petition and accompanying affidavit filed in I.A. No.162 of 2024, is that: Plaintiff filed the suit for multiple reliefs in the light of transactions that accord between him and Defendants 1 to 4 as partners of the firm M/s Matrusri Infra. Defendant No.1 had filed a written statement disputing his contentions, had raised several issues and had tried to mislead the Court. The contentions of Defendant No.1 were contrary to the understandings, agreements and various documents and court cases between the parties as well as third parties. The false allegations and averments of Defendant No.1 made in his written statement required to be answered and elaborated, and facts put in proper perspective in the light of the understanding between the parties and the documents that arose during the course of the partnership ventures. Plaintiff further averred that the reply being filed along with the application would throw more light on the issues in controversy and help the Court for effective adjudication, and that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent as trial had not yet commenced.

5. Petitioner - Defendant No.1 filed counter opposing the said petition. It is pertinent to note that counter predominantly addressed objections that properly pertained to the amendment of the plaint and the impleadment of parties sought in the simultaneously filed I.A. No.161 of 2024 and I.A. No.163 of 2024. The objections taken in the counter were:

(a) Plaintiff, along with Defendants 3 and 4, got issued dissolution notice dated 30.08.2019 calling upon Defendant No.1 to render accounts, and the relief of dissolution a