Dismissed

Manoj Kantilal Bhartiya v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Bombay HC27 Apr 2010WP/3248/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench rejected a Writ Petition challenging a trial Court's refusal to permit the petitioner to file a rejoinder. The court held that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC restricts further pleadings and the trial Court did not err in refusing the application, an order being unassailable under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; no further relief granted.

Manoj Kantilal Bhartiya Vs Pimpri Chinchwad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3248 OF 2010

Manoj K. Bhartiya

.. Petitioner

versus

Pimpri Chinchwad Mun. Corporation

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Mr.Ashok Bhatewar for the petitioner.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27^th April 2010.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who is the original plaintiff. The written statement has been filed by the respondent-Corporation to the suit filed by the petitioner. An application was made by the petitioner

¶13

before the trial Court seeking permission to file rejoinder for dealing with the averments made in the written statement. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the written statement filed by the respondent there are false and incorrect statements made and therefore it is necessary to file further pleadings for dealing with the said averments. He submitted that the observation of the trial Court that the petitioner can cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent is erroneous in as much as the petitioner must get right to file further pleadings.

¶15

¶16

I have considered the submissions. Under the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after filing of the written statement, no party to the suit is entitled to file further pleadings. Rule 9 of Order 8 of the said Code makes it very clear that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defenant other than by way of defence to set off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court. It is only in the exceptional circumstances that further pleadings can be permitted to be filed.

¶17

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues will be framed by the trial Court. If burden is casted by issues on the respondent-defendant, the burden will have to be discharged by the respondent-defendant. This is not the case where the trial Court could have exercised discretion under Rule 9 of Order 8 of the said Code. It is not possible to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected.

Manoj Kantilal Bhartiya v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kantilal Bhartiya v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sadashiv Hari Vyangankar Vs Shri Sanjay Gopinath Pokade and Anr.

Amit Shamsadan Painter through Guardian Kalpana Shamsadan Painter Vs Indian Audit and Account Department and Ors.

Pradeep Pralhad Sardesai Vs Govind Ramkisan Sarda

Om Sai Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Liberty Welfare Society and Anr.

Delux Agencies Vs Dwarka Enterprises

Prashant Suresh Shete and Ors. Vs Vijay Lalchand Parmar and Ors.