Nurumbaigari @ Dadagari @ Shaik Abdul Sattar @ Munna, Vs Nurumbaigari @ Dadagari @ Shaik Mohammed Ghouse

¶1

APHC010275522023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3333]

¶4

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1460/2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

1.NURUMBAIGARI @ DADAGARI @ SHAIK ABDUL SATTAR @ MUNNA,, S/O. BIKARI SAB, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1/67-B, CHINNA CHEPPALI VILLAGE AND POST, KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1.NURUMBAIGARI DADAGARI SHAIK MOHAMMED GHOUSE, S/O. BIKARI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,D.NO.1/67-B,R/O. CHINNA CHEPPALI VILLAGE AND POST, KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT

¶12

2.NURUMBAIGARI DADAGARI SHAIK MAHABOOB PEERA, S/O.BIKARI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,D.NO.1/68B R/O.CHINNA CHEPPALI VILLAGE AND POST,KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT

¶13

3.SMT DADAGARI NURUMBAIGARI SHAIK FAREEDA, W/O MAHABOOB PEERA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS D NO 1/68B R/O CHINNA CHEPPALI VILLAGE AND POST

¶14

2

¶15

VS,J C.R.P.NO.1460 OF 2023

¶16

KAMALAPURAM MANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the CRP by setting aside the impugned Order, dt.1.3.2023 passed in I.A.No.1170/2022 in O.S.No.20/2022 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.20/2022 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.G RAMESH BABU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.V NITESH

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

VS,J C.R.P.NO.1460 OF 2023

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.03.2023 in I.A.No.1170 of 2022 in O.S.No.20 of 2022 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, dismissing the application filed seeking permission to file rejoinder.

¶30

The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.20 of 2022.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Court below.

¶31

The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.20 of 2022 seeking declaration of title and delivery of vacant possession of ‘ A ’ Schedule property and for declaration of registered Gift Settlement deed dated 11.06.2009 executed by the 2^nd defendant in favour of the 3^rd defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants filed their written statement with some new and additional pleas. In reply to the written statement, as the plaintiff intended to file rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendants, he filed I.A.No.1170 of 2022 seeking

¶32

4

¶33

VS,J C.R.P.NO.1460 OF 2023

¶34

leave of the Court to file rejoinder. The said application was dismissed by its order dated 01.03.2023. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff is that since new and additional facts are introduced in the written statement in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has every right to take his defence in the form of rejoinder. He submits that without going through the rejoinder filed along with the application, the Court below erroneously dismissed the application, which is illegal, irregular and contrary to the settled principles of law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Pulivarthi Venkata Seshagiri Rao v. Babburi Venkata Swamy and others¹ to contend that the plaintiff can be permitted to file rejoinder to explain additional facts which had been incorporated in written statement even though the same were not mentioned in application seeking leave.

¶37

12020 (6) ALD 242 (AP)

¶38

5

¶39

VS,J C.R.P.NO.1460 OF 2023

¶40

6. Perused the material on record. Admittedly, the plaintiff

¶41

filed the suit seeking declaration of his right, title, and interest over the plaint ‘ A ’ Schedule property and to direct the respondents to deliver vacant possession of the plaint ‘ A ’ schedule property to the petitioner within time to be fixed by the Court and also for declaration of a registered Gift Deed dated 11.06.2009 bearing No.1344/2009 executed by the 2^nd defendant in favour of the 3^rd defendant as null and void and not binding on

¶42

the plaintiff. The defendants filed their written statement incorporating certain new and additional facts in respect of suit schedule property. When such new and additional facts are introduced, definitely, the plaintiff has a right to explain additional facts which has been incorporated in the written statement, in the form of rejoinder. Such a right to file rejoinder cannot be deprived of. A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants would clearly justify the plaintiff ’ s prayer seeking leave of the court to file rejoinder on the ground of new, additional and contradictory pleas are taken by the defendants. It is a settled principle of law that the primary object of subsequent pleading is to supply what has been omitted inadvertently or unintentionally or to deny or clarify the facts stated in the pleadings of the

¶43

6

¶44

VS,J C.R.P.NO.1460 OF 2023

¶45

opposite party and that in the rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts, which have been incorporated in the written statement to explain the additional facts, which have been incorporated in the written statement. Further, Order VIII Rule 9 CPC permits not only filing of subsequent pleadings, as a matter of right, in cases where the defendant set up a counter claim or pleads set off in his written statement, but also, in other cases, with the leave of the court and thus, the plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC can file a rejoinder with the leave of the court even in cases where the defendant has not pleaded set off or counter claim.

¶46

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this is of the view that the conclusions arrived at by the court below in dismissing the impugned application is not justifiable and acceptable, and thus, the order under revision is liable to be set aside.

¶47

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 01.03.2023 in I.A.No.1170 of 2022 in O.S.No.20 of 2022 passed by the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, is hereby set aside, and consequently, I.A.No.1170 of 2022 is allowed permitting the revision

¶48

7

¶49

VS,J C.R.P.NO.1460 OF 2023

¶50

petitioner/plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendants. It is made clear that in the event the plaintiff introduced new and additional facts, besides explaining the additional introduced in the written statement, the defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement to that effect, if they are advised to do so. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶52

stand closed.

¶53

_____________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶54

Date: 04.12.2025 LSP

Nurumbaigari @ Dadagari @ Shaik Abdul Sattar @ Munna, v. Nurumbaigari @ Dadagari @ Shaik Mohammed Ghouse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nurumbaigari @ Dadagari @ Shaik Abdul Sattar @ Munna, v. Nurumbaigari @ Dadagari @ Shaik Mohammed Ghouse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Madhu Babu Vs the Govt of Ap., Rep by Its C.S and 2 Others

K Krishna Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Rama Krishna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mannava Koteswara Rao Vs Pullela Akilandamma

A.Fayaz (Aks), Vs Cheethirala Muralidhar

Yerramsetti Venkata Suryanarayana Vs Yerramsetti Adilakshmi