JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 07.01.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mesne profit against the respondent-defendant; it was claimed in the plaint that the suit property was purchased by late Kedar Bux-grand father of the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 15.06.1943; in para 4 of the plaint it was claimed that Smt. Anchi Devi - aunty of Kedar Bux was married to Shri Fusaram Choudhary, whose sons were Jeth Mal, Haridwar Mal, Ram Bux etc.; Naurang Ram, Chand Mal, Baijnath, Janki Lal, Premsukh and Bhojraj are sons of Ram Bux; Janki Lal is plaintiff's attorney; Baijnath went in adoption to Jeth Mal and defendant is son of Baijnath; it was claimed that Baijnath repeatedly requested the family members of plaintiff that there was difficulty to the residents of the area for conducting marriages/functions and social programmes and the suit property was lying vacant, which will be taken care of, the house was not habitable and after repairs the same may be given shape of Dharamshala so as put the property to use; as the property was purchased by late Kedar Bux, late Jeth Mal had repeatedly requested him to purchase the property and use the same for religious purposes and, therefore, Kedar Bux purchased the property and decided to use the same for religious purposes; the family members of plaintiff decided that by using the property as Dharamshala, the same could be utilised by the residents of the area and, therefore, for the purpose of use of the property by the residents of the area and for caring, the property was handed over to Baijnath and Baijnath used to look after the said work; after death of Baijnath defendant started looking after the said work and the property continues to be a joint family property; late Baijnath was sent the sale deed and Patta etc. of the property, so that the same may be utilised for creating a religious or social document for use of social and religious purposes and no one else can use the same. 3. of the property, so that the same may be utilised for creating a religious or social document for use of social and religious purposes and no one else can use the same. 3. A written statement was filed by the respondent-defendant and the averments made in the plaint and para 4 of the plaint were denied; it was claimed that the property was purchased by Kedar Bux from Narayani W/o late Hukmi Chand and the entire documents were handed over to Jeth Mal - grand father of the defendant and since then the property along with the documents remained with Jeth Mal and after his death with his heirs; other averments were also made in the paragraphs seeking to deny the claim made by the plaintiff. 4. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking to file replication to para 4 of the written statement. 5. The application was opposed by the defendant. 6. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that from comparison of para 4 of the plaint and written statement, it cannot be said that the defendant has raised a new issue in the written statement and has replied only to the facts indicated in the plaint and in case the plaintiff was given opportunity to file replication, the same would be mere repetition of the existing pleadings and, consequently, rejected the application. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner was merely seeking to elaborate the plea already raised in the plaint and was not seeking to allege anything new or was not changing the cause of action; the application and the proposed replication were well within the settled parameters and, therefore, the order passed by the trial court is not justified. 8. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Heli & Anr. v. Nemi Chand & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5741/2012, decided on 10.07.2012 , wherein, this Court directed as under:- "7. 8. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Heli & Anr. v. Nemi Chand & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5741/2012, decided on 10.07.2012 , wherein, this Court directed as under:- "7. In the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to allow an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their proposed subsequent pleadings and the learned court below will consider the same and pass a fresh order in accordance with settled principles of law that plaintiff can not be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of filing rejoinder so as to alter the basis of his plaint. In the rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts, which have been incorporated in the written statement. The plaintiff can not be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in his rejoinder. The plaintiff can not be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action." 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 10. A close scrutiny of the averments made in para 4 of the plaint and written statement filed to said para 4 of the plaint reveals that while the case set up by the plaintiff is that the suit property was purchased by Kedar Bux by a registered sale deed and the documents pertaining to the said property were handed over to Jeth Mal - grand father of the defendant as he was looking after the suit property, which was being used for social and religious functions for the residents of the area, the defendant set up the plea in the written statement that the property was handed over by Kedar Bux to Jeth Mal along with all the title documents and the same remained in possession of Jeth Mal, who was first cousin of Kedar Bux and where after the same remained in possession of Baijnath and the defendant as owners. 11. A further look at the replication proposed to be filed by the petitioner clearly reveals that the petitioner simply wanted to amplify the averments already made in the plaint and there was nothing in the written statement, which could be said to be a plea requiring filing of a rejoinder. 11. A further look at the replication proposed to be filed by the petitioner clearly reveals that the petitioner simply wanted to amplify the averments already made in the plaint and there was nothing in the written statement, which could be said to be a plea requiring filing of a rejoinder. The trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that permitting filing of the replication as proposed by the petitioner would be mere repetition of the plea already raised in the plaint, which essentially is not the purpose of filing of a replication. 12. The reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Heli (supra) has apparently no application to the facts of the present case as only the settled parameters have been indicated in the said judgment and the replication filed by the petitioner, as noticed hereinbefore, does not fall within the said parameters. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******