Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.93 seconds)Veerasekhara Varmarayar vs Amirthavalliammal And Ors. on 27 June, 1973
7. It is not possible to accept this contention in the bald form as has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, A subsequent pleading by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim can be filed by the plaintiff as a matter of right, but the provisions do contemplate the filing of other pleading as well but by the leave of the Court and invest the Court with the widest possible discretion. Under this rule either party may, with the leave of the Court file a supplementary written statement, but at the same time it cannot be disputed that the law does not compel the plaintiff to file any rejoinder to the allegations made in the written statement and the failure of the plaintiff to file such a rejoinder cannot be treated as an admission of the plea in the written statement. The plaintiff is entitlec to join issues with the defendant with respect to all those allegations which are made in the written statement anc may lead evidence in rebuttal of those allegations notwithstanding the fact that he does not file any rejoinder. Although the procedure is well established, but nonetheless reference may be made in support of the same to two Bench decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of Gurusanthayya v. Setra Veerayya (AIR 1952 Mad 825) and Veerasekhara Varmarayar v. Amirthavalliammal (AIR 1975 Mad 51).
Kali Pado Sharma vs Surendra Nath Mahatha And Anr. on 1 March, 1974
In my opinion, it will, therefore, not be advisable to lay down as an abstract principle that under Rule 9 of Order VIII leave should be obtained, by the plaintiff to file subsequent pleading as a rejoinder to the written statement, additional written statement or the like, as this would result in lengthening the proceeding and is more likely to be abused. But at the same time in appropriate cases, if the Court feels satisfied that such a pleading is necessary, then leave can be granted. However, the Court exercising the discretion
under this rule cannot permit to go on record a rejoinder which is inconsistent with the original pleading and which contains any allegation of fact inconsistent with the earlier pleading. This provision, in my view, has been made more with the purpose of filing of written statement after the stage of Order VIII, Rule 1 is over, as was the situation in the case of Kali Pado v. Surendra Nath (AIR 1975 Pat 24), or filing of a additional written statement where a plaint is amended, or a minor defendant attains majority and wants to file his own written statement, or a new defendant is added after the filing of the written statement. I can imagine yet another situation of filing of a subsequent pleading under the provisions of this rule by either party if it wants to bring to the notice of the Court any subsequent event having taken place, which must be allowed to do as having a bearing on the controversy in the case.
Gurusanthayya, Son Of Kariveerappa vs Setra Veerayya And Ors. on 3 January, 1952
7. It is not possible to accept this contention in the bald form as has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, A subsequent pleading by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim can be filed by the plaintiff as a matter of right, but the provisions do contemplate the filing of other pleading as well but by the leave of the Court and invest the Court with the widest possible discretion. Under this rule either party may, with the leave of the Court file a supplementary written statement, but at the same time it cannot be disputed that the law does not compel the plaintiff to file any rejoinder to the allegations made in the written statement and the failure of the plaintiff to file such a rejoinder cannot be treated as an admission of the plea in the written statement. The plaintiff is entitlec to join issues with the defendant with respect to all those allegations which are made in the written statement anc may lead evidence in rebuttal of those allegations notwithstanding the fact that he does not file any rejoinder. Although the procedure is well established, but nonetheless reference may be made in support of the same to two Bench decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of Gurusanthayya v. Setra Veerayya (AIR 1952 Mad 825) and Veerasekhara Varmarayar v. Amirthavalliammal (AIR 1975 Mad 51).
1