Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.S.C.Maloo submits that a plaintiff cannot be allowed to set up a new case in subsequent pleadings and this vital aspect has not been properly addressed by learned court below. Learned counsel would contend that a very lengthy rejoinder which was filed belatedly ought to have been disallowed by the learned court below and by not doing so, the learned court below has committed a serious jurisdictional error which requires interference. Learned counsel submits that right of the plaintiff to file subsequent pleadings other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim, is circumscribed under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC and it cannot be presented except by leave of the court was a very vital issue which is completely overlooked by learned court below and, therefore, the impugned order is vulnerable. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents-plaintiffs have suppressed certain material facts in the plaint despite having knowledge and have made attempt to wriggle out from that suppression by way of rejoinder which is not permissible. Lastly, learned counsel would contend that some of the pleas sought to be raised in the rejoinder clearly tantamount to changing the stand by the plaintiffs already asserted in the plaint about ownership of the property and, therefore, such a inconsistent pleading cannot form part of subsequent pleadings. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on following legal precedents:-

A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it amply clear that a very wide discretion is conferred on the court in granting leave to a plaintiff for filing subsequent pleadings. Well it is true that in the guise of subsequent pleadings, a plaintiff cannot be allowed to set up a new case or incorporate certain inconsistent pleadings but then, plaintiff's right to file replication to meet with some of the new facts averred in the written statement is clearly permissible under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC.

The ratio decidendi of the legal precedents on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance cannot be disputed but then the principles enunciated therein are required to be applied in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of an individual case and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula. While considering the prayer of the plaintiff to file rejoinder, the nature of suit, the reliefs craved for and the pleas sought to be raised in the written statement are of great significance. If in the written statement, defendant has incorporated certain additional pleas including the plea of adverse possession, maintainability of the suit and limitation, such pleas in strict sense may not be a defence in the nature of set off or counter claim but are certainly in the nature of new facts, which if not controverted, can prejudice the cause of the plaintiff. It is in that background, the court is required to adopt a realistic and pragmatic approach rather than pedantic and idealistic approach while considering application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. A thorough evaluation of the impugned order on the touchstone of legal principles governing the province of subsequent pleadings makes it abundantly clear that learned court below has taken note of all the aspects while exercising its discretion. From the order impugned, it is clearly discernible that learned court below has scrutinized the requisite averments of the proposed rejoinder in the backdrop of written statement and thereafter has recorded its definite finding that pleas sought to be raised in the rejoinder are neither in nature of setting up a new case nor it contains inconsistent pleadings. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the discretion exercised by learned court below is judicious and it is rather difficult to concur with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that it has transgressed its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.