Allowed

Anurag Sharma S/O Shri Mohan Lal Sharma v. Madan Lal Yadav S/O Late Kalyan Sahai Yadav

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2025CW/15917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a trial court's order dismissing an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file a rejoinder. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the lower court to accept the petitioner's rejoinder regarding new facts pleaded by defendants.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 31.08.2024 dismissing the application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC is set aside; trial court directed to take the rejoinder on record.

Anurag Sharma S/O Shri Mohan Lal Sharma Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:11320]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15917/2024

¶4

Anurag Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Plot No. 43, Hem Marg, Pancholi Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Madan Lal Yadav S/o Late Kalyan Sahai Yadav, R/o Tagore Nagar Extension, Behind Shri Hanuman Ji Mandir And Muskan Thaba, 200 Feet Byepass, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj.

¶8

Hanuman Sahai Yadav S/o Late Kalyan Sahay Yadav, R/o Tagore Nagar Extension, Behind Shri Hanuman Ji Mandir And Muskan Thaba, 200 Feet Byepass, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. ManojKumar Bhardwaj,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: None Present

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶12

Order

¶13

11/03/2025

¶14

This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') against the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-IInd in civil suit No.364/2023, whereby the said Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit as well as Temporary Injunction Application against against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which defendants in their written statement had pleaded the new

[2025:RJ-JP:11320]

[CW-15917/2024]

(2 of 2)

facts so it was necessary for the plaintiff to file rejoinder, but trial court vide its order dated 31.08.2024 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that plaintiff wanted to rebut only new facts mentioned by the defendants. So, the order of the trial court be set aside.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order.

¶21

It is an admitted position that plaintiff wanted to rebut the new facts mentioned by the defendants in their written statement. So, trial court had committed error in dismissing the application under Order 8 Rule 9 filed by the plaintiff. So, order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, the petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside. The trial court is directed to take rejoinder filed by the plaintiff on record.

¶23

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶24

AVINASH GULERIA /93

Anurag Sharma S/O Shri Mohan Lal Sharma v. Madan Lal Yadav S/O Late Kalyan Sahai Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Sharma S/O Shri Mohan Lal Sharma v. Madan Lal Yadav S/O Late Kalyan Sahai Yadav

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

Jitendra Gupta S/O Rajendra Gupta, Vs Smt. Gayatri a. Rathore

M/S Bhagwati Jewellers, Vs Arpita Dheer Singh Niharia

Mangi Lal S/O Sheonath Dhakad Vs Smt. Mangi Bai D/O Sheonath W/O Prahalad Dhakad

Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Son of Shubhkaran Vs Mahant Shri Dineshgiri

Abdul Wahid S/O Mohd, Ibrahim Vs Mohd. Munaf S/O Maqbool Ahmed Alias Phool Khan

Gas Authority of India Limited Vs M/S Mahima Real Estate (P) Limited