Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Sheikh Noorul Hassan VS Nahakpam Indrajit Singh...

Checking relevance for New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for Ashok Kumar Kalra VS Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri...

Checking relevance for Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya VS Anil Panjwani...

Checking relevance for Thangam VS Navamani Ammal...

Checking relevance for Datta @ Dattatraya Dnyanu Methe VS Sonabai Ganpati Methe...

Datta @ Dattatraya Dnyanu Methe VS Sonabai Ganpati Methe - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 869 : The plaintiff is not bound to file a rejoinder in answer to the written statement of the defendant. Subsequent pleadings, such as a rejoinder (referred to as ''''replication'''' under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure), are not permitted in routine circumstances. They may only be filed when required by law, when a counterclaim or set-off is raised by the defendant, or when the court directs or permits such filing. Mere denial of the defendant''''s case by the plaintiff does not warrant a rejoinder. The plaintiff''''s case is already established in the plaint, and the burden of proving the relationship (e.g., marriage) lies on the plaintiff, which can be done through evidence without the need for a rejoinder.Checking relevance for G Ollapudi Rathamma VS Gollapudi Radha...

Checking relevance for Punjab State Electricity Board VS Pushwinder Kaur @ Pushpinder Kaur (died) Through LRs...

Checking relevance for Abhivridyasya Associates Pvt. Ltd. VS Sahan Enterprises, Rep. By Its Proprietor Mr. Vedera Ravikanth Reddy...

Abhivridyasya Associates Pvt. Ltd. VS Sahan Enterprises, Rep. By Its Proprietor Mr. Vedera Ravikanth Reddy - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 347 : The plaintiff is not bound to file a rejoinder in answer to the written statement of the defendant. Filing of rejoinder is not a matter of course and requires the leave of the Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court has wide discretion to permit or reject the filing of a rejoinder, and such permission is granted only when the Court is satisfied that a rejoinder is necessary. The primary purpose of this provision is to prevent lengthy pleadings and avoid unwarranted delays in the commencement of trial. A rejoinder is permissible only to clarify or deny facts stated in the defendant''''s written statement, or to supply what was inadvertently or unintentionally omitted, and not for introducing new pleadings or mere denial of assertions.Checking relevance for Chander Kanta Bansal VS Rajinder Singh Anand...

Checking relevance for Balraj Taneja VS Sunil Madan...

Checking relevance for S. R. Ramaraj VS Special Court, Bombay...

Checking relevance for Rohit Singh VS State Of Bihar (Now State Of Jharkhand)...

Checking relevance for P. P. K. Gopalan Nambiar VS P. P. K. Balakrishnan Nambiar...

Checking relevance for Nachipeddi Ramaswamy VS P. Buchi Reddy...

Checking relevance for River Valley Tea Company Private Limited VS Assam Gas Company Limited...

River Valley Tea Company Private Limited VS Assam Gas Company Limited - 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 884 : The plaintiff is not automatically bound to file a rejoinder in answer to the defendant''''s written statement. Under Rule 9 of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the court has discretion to allow a rejoinder or replication if it is satisfied that such a pleading is necessary for the just and fair decision of the case. The filing of a rejoinder is not mandatory but is subject to the court''''s leave, which may be granted either on application by the party or suo motu by the court. The court must record its satisfaction regarding the necessity of the subsequent pleading before allowing it. Thus, while the plaintiff may file a rejoinder, it is not a legal obligation unless permitted by the court under Rule 9 CPC.Checking relevance for RAMA MAHAL, SRIKALAHASTHI VS R. RAJASEKHAR S/O LATE R. DORASWAMY...

RAMA MAHAL, SRIKALAHASTHI VS R. RAJASEKHAR S/O LATE R. DORASWAMY - 2007 0 Supreme(AP) 543 : Under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendants within such period as may be fixed by the Court. This means that while the plaintiff is given the liberty to file a rejoinder, it is not mandatory in all cases, and the court may exercise discretion in relation to the counter claim, including rejecting it even if no rejoinder is filed, if the claim is found to be unsustainable.

• Plaintiff's Obligation to File Affidavit of Admission/Denial - The plaintiff is required to file an affidavit of admission/denial of documents along with the written statement within the prescribed time, regardless of whether a replication is filed. This affidavit is necessary for the written statement to be taken on record. Failure to do so can lead to the written statement not being admitted ["Khadi And Village Industries Commission VS Roopika Rastogi - Delhi"].

• No Automatic Right to Rejoinder - Under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), there is no explicit provision allowing a plaintiff to file a rejoinder after the defendant's written statement. Permission to file a rejoinder is at the discretion of the court, which may grant leave if deemed necessary to clarify or respond to new facts or assertions made in the written statement ["Datta @ Dattatraya Dnyanu Methe VS Sonabai Ganpati Methe - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 869"], ["Abhivridyasya Associates Pvt. Ltd. VS Sahan Enterprises, Rep. By Its Proprietor Mr. Vedera Ravikanth Reddy - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 347"].

• Court Discretion and Conditions for Filing Rejoinder - Courts have wide discretion to permit or reject a rejoinder. Typically, a plaintiff must seek leave under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC to file a rejoinder. The court considers whether the rejoinder is necessary for clarifying issues or responding to new pleadings ["Abhivridyasya Associates Pvt. Ltd. VS Sahan Enterprises, Rep. By Its Proprietor Mr. Vedera Ravikanth Reddy - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 347"].

• Timing and Consequences of Not Filing Rejoinder - Delay in filing pleadings like rejoinders can lead to forfeiture of rights, and courts may strike off defenses or deny admission of such pleadings if not filed timely. However, courts also recognize the importance of allowing parties to present their case fully, especially when new facts or assertions are introduced in written statements or counter-claims ["Moirangthem Okendro S/o. (Late) Moirangthem Ibotombi VS Thokchom Radheshyam Singh - Manipur"], ["Sree Sree Guru Gouranga Gandherbika Giridhari Jew VS Sree Bhakti Bikash Sajjan Maharaj - Calcutta"].

• Court’s Power to Allow Subsequent Pleadings - Courts may permit subsequent pleadings when new issues are introduced, or amendments are sought, provided it is fair and does not cause undue hardship. Such permissions are granted at the court’s discretion to ensure justice and proper adjudication ["Moirangthem Okendro S/o. (Late) Moirangthem Ibotombi VS Thokchom Radheshyam Singh - Manipur"].

• Summary - The plaintiff is generally not bound to file a rejoinder as a matter of right but must seek court permission, and such permission is granted at the court’s discretion based on necessity and timing. The primary obligation remains for the plaintiff to file an affidavit of admission/denial along with the written statement. Courts emphasize the importance of timely filings but also recognize the need for parties to clarify or respond to new defenses or assertions through permitted pleadings like rejoinders, subject to judicial discretion ["Khadi And Village Industries Commission VS Roopika Rastogi - Delhi"], ["Datta @ Dattatraya Dnyanu Methe VS Sonabai Ganpati Methe - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 869"], ["Abhivridyasya Associates Pvt. Ltd. VS Sahan Enterprises, Rep. By Its Proprietor Mr. Vedera Ravikanth Reddy - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 347"].

References:- Khadi And Village Industries Commission VS Roopika Rastogi - Delhi- Datta @ Dattatraya Dnyanu Methe VS Sonabai Ganpati Methe - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 869- Sudha S VS Jayalakshmi A. - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 957- Moirangthem Okendro S/o. (Late) Moirangthem Ibotombi VS Thokchom Radheshyam Singh - Manipur- Abhivridyasya Associates Pvt. Ltd. VS Sahan Enterprises, Rep. By Its Proprietor Mr. Vedera Ravikanth Reddy - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 347- G Ollapudi Rathamma VS Gollapudi Radha - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 832- SMT. ASHWATHAMMA vs SRI.ALTAF AHMED - Karnataka (2021)- M/S SAMAR LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED v/s M/ GOEL ROAD CARRIERS PVT LTD - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 36245- Ram Pal Sharma VS Bijay Pal Singh Yadav - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 3855- Sree Sree Guru Gouranga Gandherbika Giridhari Jew VS Sree Bhakti Bikash Sajjan Maharaj - Calcutta