Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-applicant has flied the suit for declaration and injunction. The applicant has applied for the post of Director in non-applicant No.1 Shri. Govindram Sakseria Institute of Technology and Science Indore. It is alleged that non-applicant No.3 the Vice Chairman of the Governing Body has made, certain relaxations in favour of the applicant regarding the interview for the post of Director. It is further alleged that against the relaxations and the rules the non-applicant wanted to hold interview without inviting the applicant, the applicant along with the suit, filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the applicants from holding interview. The non-applicants filed their reply. As in that reply certain allegations were made against the applicant he filed a counter reply or rejoinder along with an application seeking permission of the Court That application was rejected on the ground that there was no provision in the CPC for submission of rejoinder and that the rejoinder or conter-reply was not necessary for the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. Against the said order the applicant has come to this Court in revision. Held : Order 8, rule 9 CPC does not contemplate the filing of a rejoinder by the plaintiff. The only remedy for taking additional pleas by a plaintiff is to seek amendment under Order 6, rule 17. But the said rule applies to pleadings only. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that according to section 141 CPC the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. However, when the applicant has not moved in the trial Court to make amendment in his application for temporary injunction, it is not necessary to express any opinion whether it was permissible under the Law to allow the amendment. I am therefore, of the view that the trial Court did not commit any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application for permission to file rejoinder and hence no interference is called for by this Court in revision. Revision dismissed.