Yadalla Radha Krishna Murthy vs Makam Parthasarathy and others

Aggrieved by the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah in IA No.133/99 in OS No.301/98 wherein the request of the petitioner to file a rejoinder contraverting some of the allegations made by the defendants in the written statement was rejected the present revision petition is filed.

Heard both the Counsel.

The Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application by holding that if permission is given to file a rejoinder an opportunity should be given to the defendants to file an additional written statement and if the defendants take some other plea, can the plaintiff file another rejoinder. The reasoning given by the officer concerned is unheard of. Under Order VI, Rule 5, the Court is expected to permit the parties to file a statement with better particulars of any matter started in any pleading upon the said terms and costs. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner intended to give better particulars of his claim in the light of the averments made in the written statement by the defendants/respondents herein to give better particulars of his client, but not to take a fresh plea altogether different from the one he has already taken in the suit. Hence, the question of giving opportunity to the defendants to file additional written statement does not arise in this case as the defendants have already stated their case in the written statement.

Hence, the order of the Junior Civil Judge suffers from illegality and the same is set aside. Accordingly, a direction is given to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, to permit the petitioner to file a rejoinder by giving better particulars of his claim and proceed with the case in accordance with law.

The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.