AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 2.9.2014, in IA No. 1018 of 2014 in OS No. 373 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, permitting the respondent to file a rejoinder. Under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party shall not file any pleading subsequent to the filing of the written statement of the defendant either by way of a defence to set-off or counterclaim, except by the leave of the Court. Though Order VI Rule 1 C.P.C. has not included rejoinder as a pleading, conventionally, the Courts invariably allow rejoinders to be filed as part of additional pleadings.
This Court in Gongula Venkateswara Rao Vs. The S.H.O., Vissannapeta P.S. and Others, , held as under:
"Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C., should not be confused by reading together that it permits only additional written statement by way of pleadings. Because the expression used therein is ''that no pleading'' subsequent to written statement shall be filed meaning thereby both plaint and written statement. Pleadings shall mean plaint and written statement as per Order 6 Rule 1 C.P.C. In that context, the pleadings and additional pleadings in Order 8 Rule 9 include the additional plaint also which can be either called as rejoinder or the reply in its real consequences."
In the light of the above position in law, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court in permitting the petitioner to file rejoinder. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, CRP MP No. 3277 of 2015 is dismissed as infructuous.