Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2102 (RAJ)

Hema Ram v. Tikam

2014-12-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to question the validity of order dated 20.3.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC in the suit as well as in application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected. 2. The suit was filed by the petitioners seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents. 3. A written statement was filed and several pleas were raised by the respondents. Whereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC along-with a draft replication seeking to counter the new pleas raised by the defendants. 4. After hearing submissions of the parties, the trial court by its order dated 20.3.2014 came to the conclusion that the replication filed was unnecessarily lengthy and therefore, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, inasmuch as, it was necessary for the petitioners to file replication to the contentions raised by the respondents and in absence whereof the case of the petitioners would be prejudiced. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 7. It was submitted that filing of replication is not necessary and only in exceptional cases that the power should be exercised by the trial court and the trial court was justified in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners-plaintiffs in the application. 8. I have considered the submissions alongwith the record. 9. A bare look at the order passed by the trial court reveals that the trial court after noticing the requirements of Order 8, Rule 9 CPC and circumstances, in which permission can be granted has merely observed in one line that the replication appears to be unnecessarily lengthy and rejected the application. Nowhere in the impugned order, the trial court has came to the conclusion that the plea raised by the respondents-defendants in the written statement did not require filing of the replication by the petitioners and / or the same was not necessary. 10. Nowhere in the impugned order, the trial court has came to the conclusion that the plea raised by the respondents-defendants in the written statement did not require filing of the replication by the petitioners and / or the same was not necessary. 10. Merely because a proposed replication filed by the plaintiffs, in the opinion of the Court was unnecessarily lengthy, cannot be a reason for rejecting the prayer, the trial court ought to have pointed out those portions in the replication, which in the opinion of the said court were unnecessary. 11. Having not indicated the said aspect in the order impugned and rejecting the application, the same cannot be sustained. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 20.3.2014 passed by the trial court are set aside and the applications filed by the petitioners under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC in the suit as well as application for temporary injunction are allowed. The replication is ordered to be taken on record.No costs.Petition allowed. *******