Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Shakoor And Etc. vs Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur ... on 8 August, 1986
In Shakoor & Ors. vs. Jaipur Development Authority & ors. (2), this Court considered the application of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 even in a case of miscellaneous application under Order 39 rule 1, C.P.C. and held that undoubtedly the
contingency of filing a rejoinder does not arise in every case because it could arise only in such cases where some new plea or fact is introduced by the defendant in his reply, only with the leave of the Court and the purpose of putting such an embargo is that plaintiff may not be permitted to introduce a pleading subsequently by a rejoinder. The procedure provided for a trial for the suit and miscellaneous proceedings is meant for finding out truth and to do justice. The procedure is always a hand-maid of justice and full opportunity should he given to the parties to bring forth their case before the Court, unless such procedure is specifically prohibited under the law and if Court is satisfied that subsequent pleadings should not be permitted, the plaintiff cannot be denied his right to file a rejoinder.
Veerasekhara Varmarayar vs Amirthavalliammal And Ors. on 27 June, 1973
In Veerasekhara Varamarayar vs. Amirthavalliammal & Ors. (3), the Division Bench of Madras High Court held that where the defendant brings the new facts in the written statement, the plaintiff must get a chance to file a rejoinder challenging the truth and binding nature of the allegations/averments made in the written statement. But law does not compel the plaintiff to file a replication/rejoinder and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have admitted the same simply because he had not filed the rejoinder.
State Of Rajasthan And Anr. vs Mohammed Ikbal And Ors. on 4 March, 1998
In State of Rajasthan vs. Mohammed Ikbal (6), this Court considered its earlier judgments in M/s. Ajanta Enterprises (supra) and M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (7), and held that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas under the garb of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only the additional facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement. In rejoinder, plaintiff cannot be permitted to come forward with an entirely new case or raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action.
Saiyed Sirajul Hasan vs Sh. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur And ... on 6 August, 1991
In Saiyed Sirajul Hasan vs. Sh. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur & Ors. (9), the Delhi High Court had held that rejoinder cannot be filed as a matter of right and it is an absolute discretion of the Court to grant leave to present a fresh pleading. A party seeking permission under Order 8 Rule 9 has to provide "cogent reason for permission" to file additional plea.
Anant Construction (P) Ltd. vs Ram Niwas on 3 October, 1994
In M/s. Anant Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas (10), the Delhi High Court held that a replication to written statement cannot be filed, not can be permitted to be
filed ordinarily much less in routine. The Court has a discretion to permit replication and after scrutinizing the plaint and the written statement, if it comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff can be permitted to joint specific pleadings to a case, specifically and newly raised in the written statement, and such a need arises for the plaintiff introducing a plea by way of "confession and avoidance." The Court further held that a mere denial of the defendant's case by the plaintiff need no replication for the reason that he can safely rely on rules of implied or assumed traverse and joinder of issue.
Rohan Lal Choudhary vs Prem Prakash Gupta on 25 July, 1979
In Rohan Lal Choudhary vs. Prem Prakash Gupta (4), the Patna High Court has taken the same view holding that the plaintiff is entitled to join issues with the defendant in respect to all those allegations which are made in the written statement and may lead evidence in rebuttal of those allegations notwithstanding the fact that he did not file any rejoinder.
Ajanta Enterprises vs Bimla Charan Chatterjee And Anr. on 30 June, 1987
In State of Rajasthan vs. Mohammed Ikbal (6), this Court considered its earlier judgments in M/s. Ajanta Enterprises (supra) and M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (7), and held that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas under the garb of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only the additional facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement. In rejoinder, plaintiff cannot be permitted to come forward with an entirely new case or raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action.
Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd., Rourkela on 20 August, 1992
In State of Rajasthan vs. Mohammed Ikbal (6), this Court considered its earlier judgments in M/s. Ajanta Enterprises (supra) and M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (7), and held that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas under the garb of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only the additional facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement. In rejoinder, plaintiff cannot be permitted to come forward with an entirely new case or raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action.
Ishwar Lal And Anr. vs Ashok And Anr. on 3 March, 1998
In Ishwar Lal & Anr. vs. Ashok & Anr. (8), this Court held that rejoinder-affidavit can be filed only with leave of the court and it is a matter of judicial discretion vested in the trial court which should be exercised only if there are cogent reasons to allow the plaintiff to file rejoinder to the written statement.
1