JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 17.1.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC seeking to file replication has been rejected. 2. While dismissing the application, the trial court found that the averment sought to be made in the replication, was factually not correct and consequently, rejected the application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application, inasmuch as, the fact as to whether the averments made in the replication were correct or not was subject matter of investigation during the trial and while deciding the application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC, the trial court could not have determined the said aspect and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 5. A bare look at the finding recorded by the trial court indicates that based on the material available on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the averments sought to be made in the replication was factually incorrect. No exception can be taken to the finding, which is based on material available before the Court and it cannot be said that first averment made in the replication would be taken on record and then only the trial court can adjudicate on the said issue. 6. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******