JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.10.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Osian whereby he dismissed the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner WO. VIII, R. 9 CPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. M.L. Chhangani, the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioners and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the plain-tiff-petitioner wanted to file replication in respect of certain new pleas in an application filed u /O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC. The learned Civil Judge did not appreciate the controversy involved in the case and confined his order by saying that in an application u /O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC, the question of possession is to be decided and the same could be decided on the basis of the reply and the affidavits. In other words, he did not feel it necessary that the plaintiff be given an opportunity to reply the new pleas raised by the defendant in his reply. Thus, the learned trial Court has committed a material illegality and irregularity in not providing this opportunity of replication to the new pleas raised by the defendant to the plaintiff. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Shakoor v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 1987 Raj. 19 . In that case, this Court recognised the right of party to file replication even in the interlocutory proceedings u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC. 4. The learned counsel has also produced before me the reply filed by the non-petitioners and the replication filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-non-petitioners has vehemently opposed the above application on the ground that it is in the discretion of the Court to allow or not to allow the plaintiff to file replication. He challenged the maintainability of the application u /O. VIII, R. 9 CPC on the ground that no violation of justice would occasion if permission is not accorded to the plaintiff to file the replication. He supported the observations of the learned trial Court that in an application for grant of interlocutory injunction u /O. 39, Rr. He challenged the maintainability of the application u /O. VIII, R. 9 CPC on the ground that no violation of justice would occasion if permission is not accorded to the plaintiff to file the replication. He supported the observations of the learned trial Court that in an application for grant of interlocutory injunction u /O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 CPC, the learned trial Court is called upon to decide the question of possession and it could be decided on the basis of affidavits and the reply filed by the defendant to the application filed by the plaintiff. In other words, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to file replication. 6. I have considered the rival contentions raised at the bar and have also gone through the record of the case. I have also perused the reply to the application u /O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC filed by the defendants as also replication filed by the plaintiff and am of the opinion that the learned trial Court was not justified in observing that replication was not necessary and matter-could have been decided on the materials available on record. The plaintiff has a legal right to file the replication and this right cannot be curtailed and the learned trial Court is bound to consider all the material which is available on record and the plaintiff has a right to file replication even in the interlocutory proceedings u/O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 CPC. Hence, it cannot be said that if the plaintiff is denied this right to file replication, it would not cause failure of justice. 7. I, therefore, allow this revision petition and set aside the order dated 6.10.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Osian. The replication filed by the plaintiff is already on record. Let it may be taken on record. The learned trial Court will now proceed to decide the above case in accordance with the law as early as possible.Revision allowed. *******