Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(10) BLACK'S Law Dictionary, 6th Edn, defines replication as pleading in common law made by the plaintiff in an answer to the defendant's plea; and a rejoinder as a second pleading in common law on the part of the defendant being his answer to the plaintiff's replication. (see pp 1288(1) and 1300 (1). 10.1 Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary ( 7th Edn.) defines pleadings as under: "PLEADINGS:- Written or printed statements delivered alternately by the parties to one another, until the question of fact and law to be decided in an action have been ascertained i.e. until issue is joined. The pleadings delivered (a) by the plaintiff, (b) by the defendant, are as follows:(l)(i) statement of claim;(ii) defense, 2(i) reply. There also exist 2(ii) rejoinder, 3(i) surrejoinder; (ii) rebutter; (4) surrebutter; but they are seldom, used. No pleading subsequent to reply may be served without the leave of the Court." "REPLICATION; reply. If the plaintiff desires to deliver a reply, he must deliver it within fourteen days from the service of the defense (Ord.18). If no reply is served there is implied joinder of issue on the defense. "

10.2 Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn) defines 'replication' as a term for a plaintiff's answer to a defendant's plea ( Page 869, Col-1). 'Rejoinder' is defined as a defendant's answer to the plaintiff's reply ( page 852, Col.2) 10.3 Where plaintiff wishes to offer affirmative matter in answer to affirmative plea of the defendant and involving another transaction consistent with the plaintiff's position as the original pleader, he must reply; this being the purpose of a "replication". A replication in pleading is the plaintiff's answer or reply to the defendant's plea or answer. ( See Words &: Phrases, Permanent Edn Vol 37, P 24, Col.2) (11) In Halsbury's Laws of England Vol 36, law as to pleading has been stated vide paras 53 and 55. What the plaintiff may in appropriate circumstances serve on the defendant is called a reply. No pleading subsequent to a reply or a defendant's counter claim may be served except with the leave of the Court. Pleading subsequent to a reply preserve their traditional name i.e. rejoinder, (12) 1 Below para 54 it is stated that a plaintiff who serves a reply should either specifically deny every allegation in the defense which he does not admit or join issue upon defense. A reply is not necessary if the plaintiff merely desires to join issue on a defense unaccompanied by a counterclaim, for in these circumstances, he can rely on the automatic joinder of issue. (See pp 42-43). 11.2 Law as to confession and avoidance in pleadings is stated vide para 32, as under :- "CONFESSION and avoidance :- Where a party contends that, assuming the facts alleged to be true, nevertheless the factual situation which prima facie arises does not bind him, this contention must be expressly and clearly raised. A plea of this kind is called a confession and avoidance. In effect it confesses or admits that the allegations of the other party are true, but seeks to avoid the legal inference that would otherwise be drawn from the ad- mission by setting out fresh facts to show that in the circumstances that inference should not be drawn. A party should observe great caution in pleading a confession and avoidance, except as an alternative to a traverse of the allegations of the other party, for if this is the sole plea with reference to those allegations, the party raising the plea is bound by his confession, even if it later becomes clear that the facts were not correctly alleged by the other party."

(13) A more detailed rather exhaustive statement of law is to be found in Corpus Jurisdiction SECUNDUM. It would be useful to extract and reproduce the following paragraphs: "A reply or replication is purely a defensive pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in avoidance of, new matters alleged in the plea or answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new matters. (para 184) No reply or replication is necessary where the issues are completed by, and no new matter is set up, in the plea or answer. (para 185 a.) At common law a replication is necessary where a plea introduces new matter and concludes with a verification; but under the codes, practice acts, or rules of civil procedure of a number of states a reply to new defensive matter is not necessary or is necessary only when ordered by the court. A reply to a counterclaim is generally necessary; but under some code provisions no reply or replication is required in any case. (para 185 b.(1)) The discretion which the court possesses, under some codes or practice acts, to direct the plaintiff, on the defendant's application, to reply to new matter alleged as a defense by way of avoidance will be exercised in favor of granting the application where the new matter, if true, will constitute a defense to the action and granting the order will prevent surprise and be of substantial advantage to the defendant without prejudice to the plaintiff. [ para 185 b.(ii) ] A replication, however, is unknown in the practice of a few states and in such states is not permitted. So too, under a statute providing that there shall be no reply except in enumerated situations, a reply is not permissible in a case not within one of the exceptions. Indeed, generally, in jurisdictions wherein pleading is governed by statutory provisions, plaintiff has no right to file a reply when a reply is not required by statute or order of court and a reply filed in a case where no reply is required is to be treated as a nullity, unless and to the extent that, it constitutes an admission by plaintiff, as discussed infra para 204. Under the common law system of pleading, plaintiff may, at his election, file a replication to a special plea setting up an affirmative defense On the other hand, it is proper to reject a replication to pleas which merely traverse allegations of the declaration and set up no new matter. Where the plea concludes to the country, plaintiff cannot reply with any new matter but must either accept it by a similiter or demur. So a good special traverse can be answered only by joining issue thereon and not by filing a replication. para 191 ] (14) Decided cases in India use the term rejoinder loosely for a reply or replication filed by the plaintiff in answer to the defendant's plea. Strictly speaking a reply filed by the plaintiff ( when permissible) is a replication. A pleading filed by the defendant subsequent to replication is a rejoinder.

(26) 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 or 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) I.As. 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 (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 pleas 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 causes 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. .Appreciation is placed on record of useful assistance rend erred by Shri Ishwar Sahai Sr Advocate and Ms Ritu Bhalla advocate both from civil side of High Court Bar who brought to the notice of the court quite a few aspects relevant to the issues at hand.