Partly allowed

P.Pavan Kumar v. Syndicate Bank

Telangana HC20 Dec 2011CRP/2671/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing an application to file a rejoinder to a counter claim. It held that such a subsequent pleading can be permitted under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC and directed the lower court to reconsider the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside application for rejoinder was set aside; lower court directed to reconsider the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC within six weeks.

P.Pavan Kumar Vs Syndicate Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2671 OF 2011

¶3

Dated: 20.12.2011

¶4

Between : P.Pavan Kumar … Petitioner And Syndicate Bank

¶5

… Respondent

¶6

The Court made the following:-

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2671 OF 2011

¶8

O R D E R:

¶9

The revision petitioner is the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.2151 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the VII-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. The 1^st respondent herein/the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. The revision petitioner/1^st defendant filed written statement contesting the suit claim apart from making a counter claim for Rs.4,19,886/- The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the counter claim. Subsequently, the revision petitioner/1^st defendant filed I.A.No.1977 of 2009 seeking permission to file a rejoinder to his counter claim stating that the plaintiff in his rejoinder to the counter claim had taken new pleas, which were not originally stated in the plaint and therefore, it is necessary for him to file a rejoinder to establish his case. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 20.09.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed.

¶10

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶11

Apparently, the application was dismissed by the Court below only on the ground that there is no provision under which the defendant can seek permission to file a rejoinder to his written statement-cum-counter claim.

¶12

However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the expression rejoinder was used in I.A.No.1977 of 2009, in fact it is nothing but subsequent pleading which can be permitted by the Court in the circumstances specified in Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. Therefore, the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application only on the ground that there is no such provision.

¶13

Accordingly, the order under Revision is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to reconsider I.A.No.1977 of 2009 in O.S.No.2151 of 2005 and pass appropriate orders in terms of Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C, as

¶14

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.

¶15

___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 20.12.2011 Ivd

P.Pavan Kumar v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Pavan Kumar v. Syndicate Bank

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

Ncc-Ivrcl-Smc (Jv), a Joint Venture entity of Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastrucutre Corporation Ltd.

N. Bayyapu Reddy Vs M. Surya Prakash

K. Sudhaker Reddy Vs M/s. Sudha Constructions

Seethamma, Vs Joint Collector

M/s Jubilee Officers Club, Vs Sri Samee Sharma

Jillellamudi Sambasiva Rao Vs The Govt. of A.P.