The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting an application for leave to file a rejoinder/replication under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC. The Bench held that the submitted document denied the written statement rather than explaining plaint averments, justifying the trial court's rejection.
The writ petition stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 2619 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka
(BY SRI: ABHISHEK .N.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 3RD BLOCK, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BETHAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 116
BETHAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARPET TALUK KOALR DISTRICT - 563 116
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: C. PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4.
R5 TO R7 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS
DISPENSED WITH V.C.O.DT.10/02/21)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD.19.12.2020 OF THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KGF IN O.S.NO.14/2017 AT ANNEXURE-A IN DISMISSING IA NO. IV FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 PRAYING THE HONBLE COURT TO PERMIT THE PLAINTIFFS TO FILE REPLY TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT AND ETC.,
THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.14/2017 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at KGF, are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2020 rejecting I.A.No.IV filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC seeking permission to file rejoinder/replication.
NC: 2023:KHC:45748 WP No. 2619 of 2021
for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers.
NC: 2023:KHC:45748 WP No. 2619 of 2021
additional facts stated by the defendants in the written statement, it necessiates the plaintiffs to elaborate the averments with regard to the Will. Therefore, permission was sought to file rejoinder/replication. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.IV.
1 ILR 2019 KAR 4977
replication/rejoinder. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
REASONS
NC: 2023:KHC:45748 WP No. 2619 of 2021
denied. The replication/rejoinder shall be in the nature of explanation to the averments already existing in the plaint. The replication/rejoinder is not to deny each and every statement made in the written statement. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the rejoinder/replication enclosed to I.A.No.IV is not in the nature of replication/rejoinder.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
PN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for filing a rejoinder/replication under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC should be allowed.
Whether the document submitted by the petitioners can be characterised as a valid rejoinder/replication in the nature of explaining averments in the plaint.
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for leave to file rejoinder/replication.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishnamurthy Vs. Hanumakka and othersDistinguished¶5
(2019) ILR 2019 KAR 4977 · Who else cites this
Krishnamurthy Vs. Hanumakka and othersDistinguished¶9
(2019) ILR 2019 KAR 4977 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. V. Girija and others
Smt. A. Jalajakshamma and others
S.G. Pandit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
