Dismissed

Maan Mahendra Singh v. Kalyan Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2018CW/1477/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order allowing a plaintiff to file a rejoinder under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The court held that the lower court acted within its jurisdiction as its intervention was limited to specific issues of Will and adverse possession, prohibiting fresh pleas.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the respondents shall not produce any rejoinder contrary to the restrictions imposed by the court below.

Maan Mahendra Singh Vs Kalyan Singh and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 1477/2016

Maan Mahendra Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

Kalyan Singh And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Mahalana For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.R. Budania with Mr. Rajeev Purohit

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

06/08/2018

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under

¶13

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following

¶14

reliefs:

¶15

“(i) The impugned order dated 27.11.2015 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajgarh in Civil Case No.90/2012 (Kalyan Singh Vs. Sharda Devi & Ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC may kindly be rejected with costs.

¶16

(ii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner. (iii) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.”

¶17

The plaintiff-respondent No.1 has filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and proforma respondent No.2 to 9. The written statement was filed by defendant No.5, the present petitioner as well as defendant-proforma respondent No.8. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, and while allowing the said application, the plaintiff-

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-1477/2016]

¶20

respondent No.1 was permitted to file rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendants No.5 & 8.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the rejoinder could have been permitted only on new facts, and since there is no averment made by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in his application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC regarding any new fact, therefore, such permission to file rejoinder to written statement is beyond the scope of law.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Hon’ble Court in Gurjant Singh Vs. Krishan Chander reported in 2000 LawSuit (Raj.) 495 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohammed Ikbal reported in 1998 LawSuit (Raj.) 92.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that although, no new facts were pleaded, but the zone of interference made by the learned court below is justified in light of the fact that the permission to file rejoinder to the written statement was granted by the learned court below only to the extent of the limited issue i.e. the Will and the adverse possession.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned court below allowing the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC, as the learned court below itself has prohibited the respondents from raising any fresh pleas and has made the limited intervention only regarding the rejoinder being permissible pertaining to the fact of Will and the adverse possession.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-1477/2016]

¶27

This Court finds that the precedent laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case.

¶28

In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall not produce any rejoinder contrary to the restrictions imposed by the learned court below.

¶29

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶30

/zeeshan/

Maan Mahendra Singh v. Kalyan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maan Mahendra Singh v. Kalyan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs State and Ors.

M/S. C.K.M and Company Vs State and Ors.

M/S.C.K.M. and Company,Udaipur Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Anita Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Kumar Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishna Automobile Vs the Union of India and Anr.