Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 95 (MAN)

Lalzomlien Gangte and Ors. v. T. Dongzakai Gangte

2015-06-09

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Churachandpur in Judl. Misc. Case No. 3/ 2014(Old No.)/Judl.(Misc.)/1/2014(New No.) arising out of O.S. No. 11 of 2011(old No.)/O.S./2/2014(New No.) rejecting a plaint filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "CPC') seeking for leave to file a rejoinder to the additional written statement filed by the defendant/respondent. 2. As it appears from the record, plaint was amended and a consolidated plaint was filed after amendment. The defendant who had earlier filed written statement was permitted to file an additional written statement and accordingly the additional written statement was filed by the defendant. Alleging that some new facts have been introduced in the additional written statement, the plaintiffs/ petitioners filed a petition under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC for grant of leave of the Court to file a rejoinder to the additional written statement. The learned Civil Judge, on reading of the contents of the additional written statement found that the statements made therein are only denial of the statements made in the amended plaint and no new facts have been alleged in the additional written statement. Accordingly having arrived at the above finding, the learned Civil Judge rejected the petition. 3. Mr. K. Milan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to the additional written statement filed by the defendant/respondent and submitted that certain new facts have been alleged, such as encroachment alleged to have been made by the plaintiffs over the suit land as well as the genuineness of the sale deed on the basis of which the claim of the plaintiffs stands. Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent submitted that in the first written statement, the claim of title by the plaintiffs/petitioners had been denied by the defendant based on the said sale deed and possession was also denied. Therefore, the subsequent pleading in the additional written statement has no new facts as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners but the repetition of what has already been stated in the first written statement. 4. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs can seek for permission of the Court to file a rejoinder under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC. 4. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs can seek for permission of the Court to file a rejoinder under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are the case of (1) State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Md. Ikbal & Others, reported in AIR 1999 Rajasthan 169; (2) Sunil and Vasanth Architects and Consulting Engineers & Anr. v. Tata Ceramics Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 Kerala 88. Reliance was also placed in the case of Shakoor and etc. v. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and Etc. reported in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 19. 5. The Court is now called upon to look into the first written statement, the amended plaint and additional written statement to find out as to whether any new facts which were not there in the first written statement have been inserted in the additional written statement or not. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to paragraphs -4 and 6 of the additional written statement and submitted that new facts have been alleged in the said two paragraphs of the additional written statement. I compared these two paragraphs with the statements made by the defendant in the first written statement and I find that it is only explanatory in nature and no new facts have been alleged in the additional written statement. Since the plea remains the same in the first written statement as well as in the additional written statement, merely explaining the facts in the additional written statement does not amount to introduction of new facts. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no necessity at all for filing a rejoinder to the additional written statement and accordingly I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order. The revision is accordingly dismissed.