Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Matushree Enterprises vs Smt. Kamla Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:33187) on 28 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:33187]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7956/2023
M/s Matushree Enterprises, Owner Santosh Kumar Nathulal
Sharma Huf Through Karta Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Nathulal
Sharma, Age - 59 Years, Caste - Brahmin. R/o Near Jain Sarai,
Station Road, Balotra District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Shri Chandrabhan Patel, Proprietor
M/s Perfect Selection New, Hanuwant Dharamshala,
Balotra R/o Patel Colony, Samdari Road, Balotra, District
Barmer.
2. Chandrabhan Patel S/o Shri Mota Ram Chaudhary, R/o
Perfect Tower, Opposite Panchyat Samiti, Barmer Road,
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Hedau
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chotia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order 28/07/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff challenging the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Balotra, whereby the application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. for taking the rejoinder on record has been rejected by the learned Court concerned.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a money recovery suit, stating therein that he is running a mobile shop and is a distributor of Nokia mobiles, and that the respondents used to take mobile phones from him from time to time, for which the payment was not made. The respondents filed a written statement and raised objections, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and that the firm in question was not registered, and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. Thereafter, issues were framed on 17.11.2021, (Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:12:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33187] (2 of 6) [CW-7956/2023] wherein both the learned counsels endorsed their signatures, signifying satisfaction with the issues framed. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned on three different occasions, and thereafter, an application under Order VIII Rule, 9 C.P.C. was filed by the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, asserting that certain objections had been raised by the respondents-defendants, and therefore, it was necessary to file a rejoinder.
3. Needless to emphasize that the application does not disclose any specific new averments made in the reply to which a rejoinder was required, nor does it indicate which particular paragraphs necessitated a response by way of rejoinder or what additional facts were introduced by the respondents-defendants warranting the filing of a rejoinder. Despite the absence of such details in the application, the petitioner-plaintiff proceeded to file a complete proposed rejoinder to each and every paragraph of the reply filed by the respondents-defendants.
4. The learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 15.02.2023, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, while observing that no specific details were provided as to which particular paragraphs of the reply necessitated a rejoinder. Furthermore, it was noted that there was a gross delay in filing the application, especially when the issues were jointly framed and signed by both learned counsels. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on three different occasions for recording of evidence. It was at that stage that the application for taking the rejoinder on record was filed, and hence, the delay was found to be unexplained. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.02.2023, the present writ petition has been filed. (Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:12:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33187] (3 of 6) [CW-7956/2023]
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court has simply dismissed the application on the ground of delay, without considering the contents of the rejoinder or examining whether there was sufficient cause for not filing the rejoinder earlier. He further asserts that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside, particularly in light of the fact that legal objections were raised by the respondents- defendants, which made it necessary to file the rejoinder.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents- defendants has supported the impugned order and submitted that no specific reason has been stated in the application as to why the rejoinder is being filed. He further contended that a para-wise rejoinder to each and every paragraph of the written statement has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, which is not permissible under the law.
7. The learned counsel for both the parties were heard, and the material available on record was perused. A bare perusal of the provisions under Order VIII, Rule 9 CPC clearly reveals that a rejoinder cannot be filed as a matter of right, and can only be permitted with the leave of the Court upon showing sufficient cause. It is well settled that unless some additional facts are introduced in the written statement which necessitate a specific rebuttal, a rejoinder cannot be permitted merely for the purpose of replying to each and every paragraph of the written statement. In the present case, there is no such assertion or justification indicating that any new or additional facts were raised by the respondents-defendants that required countering through a rejoinder. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of "Noorul Hassan (Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:12:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33187] (4 of 6) [CW-7956/2023] v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.", reported in 2024 (9) SCC 353, while approving "Anant Construction (P) Ltd. v. Ram Niwas", reported in 1994 31 DRJ 205, observed as under:-
"9. Before we deal with the aforesaid issue, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of the CPC in relation to pleadings. Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC declares that pleading shall mean a plaint and a written statement. Rule 9 of Order VIII specifically edicts that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counter- claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court. Though, however, the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement.
12. Finally, the Court summed up its conclusions as under:
(Anant Constructions case, SCC online Del para 24)
24. To sum up:
(1) 'Replication' and 'rejoinder' have well defined meanings. Replication is a pleading by plaintiff in answer to defendant's plea. 'Rejoinder' is a second pleading by defendant in answer to plaintiff's reply i.e. replication.
(2) To reach the avowed goal of expeditious disposal, all interlocutory applications are supposed to be disposed of soon on their filing. A delivery of copy of the I.A. to the counsel for opposite party is a notice of application. Reply, if any, may be filed in between, if the time gap was reasonable enough, enabling reply being filed.
(3) IAs which do not involve adjudication of substantive rights of parties and / or which do not require investigation or inquiry into facts are not supposed to be contested by filing written reply and certainly not by filing replication.
(4) A replication to written statement is not to be filed nor permitted to be filed ordinarily, much less in routine. A replication is permissible in three situations:
i. when required by law;
ii. when a counter claim is raised or set off is pleaded by defendant;(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:12:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33187] (5 of 6) [CW-7956/2023] iii. when the court directs or permits a replication being filed.
(5) Court would direct or permit replication being filed when having scrutinised plaint and written statement the need of plaintiff joining specific pleading to a case specifically and newly raised in written statement is felt. Such a need arises for the plaintiff introducing a plea by way of "confession and avoidance".
(6) A plaintiff seeking leave of the Court has to present before it the proposed replication. On applying its mind the court may grant or refuse the leave.
(7) A mere denial of defendant's case by plaintiff needs no replication. The plaintiff can rely on rule of implied or assumed traverse and joinder of issue.
(8) Subsequent pleadings are not substitute for amendment in original pleadings.
(9) A plea inconsistent with the plea taken in original pleadings cannot be permitted to be taken in subsequent pleadings.
(10) A plea which is foundation of plaintiff's case or essentially a part of cause of action of plaintiff, in absence whereof the suit will be liable to be dismissed or the plaint liable to be rejected, cannot be introduced for the first time by way of replication."
8. This Court, in the case of "State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Mohhammad Ikbal & Ors." reported in AIR 1999 Raj 169, held as under:-
"The principles deducible from the above discussions may be summarised thus:-
a) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint.
b) In rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts which have been incorporated in the written statement.(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:12:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33187] (6 of 6) [CW-7956/2023]
c) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in his rejoinder.
d) The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action.
e) Application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC as both are contextually different."
9. Taking guidance from the above-mentioned judgment and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2023, as no plausible reasons whatsoever were stated justifying the necessity for filing the rejoinder. It is further observed that the objections raised by the respondents- defendants were purely legal in nature, which are to be adjudicated based on the applicable law, and therefore, no rejoinder was warranted in response to the same. Moreover, the rejoinder was sought to be filed after a delay spanning three different dates, during which the matter was adjourned, clearly indicating that the filing was only with the intention to procrastinate the proceedings. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly rejected the application, and this Court finds no infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed.
10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J 92-charul/-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:12:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)