Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Hari Singh vs Sampat Singh S/o Late Bhanwar Lal

By way of present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner has laid challenge to order dated

02.06.2016, passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter

referred to as "the Trial Court") whereby petitioner''s application

under Order VIII Rule 9, seeking to take rejoinder on record has

been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

Mr. RS Mankad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

challenging the impugned order dated 02.06.2016, contended that

since the defendant has brought in various new facts, the plaintiff

- petitioner should have been given an opportunity to file

rejoinder to meet with the same.

In aid of the above argument, he invited the attention of this

Court towards ''special pleas'' taken by the defendant in his written

statement and tried to impress that defendant has brought in

numerous new facts, which are beyond his defence; in light of

these, he submitted that the petitioner is required to file rejoinder.

Attacking the order impugned, he argued that the learned

Trial Court has rejected petitioner''s request for filing rejoinder on

the reasons which are not relevant to the provisions of the Order

VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted

that merely because the rejoinder was being filed after five years

of the written statement, his right of the filing rejoinder cannot be

refused.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

the material available on record, this Court does not find it to be a

fit case wherein supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, conferred

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be

exercised. The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion and

has observed that there are no new facts incorporated by the

defendant in his written statement and the facts which have been

stated in the written statement are nothing but defendant''s own

defence.

Having perused the pleas taken by the defendant in his

written statement, this Court is satisfied that the detailed

averments made in the ''special pleas'', are nothing, but the

defendant''s defence about the disputed the transaction. Needless

to observe that such facts need to be proved by the defendant,

even if they are assumed to be new.

It is also to be noticed that the plaintiff - petitioner has

moved the present application, seeking leave to file the rejoinder

after five years of filing the written statement, when the matter is

fixed for plaintiff''s evidence.

In view of the overall analysis of the extant facts, this Court

is not inclined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition thus, fails.