JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 24.03.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jalore whereby the rejoinder submitted by the petitioners have been refused to be taken on record. 2. The facts in brief, requiring the petitioners to approach this Court are that the petitioners - plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, seeking order of restraint qua the defendants so that they would not interfere with the construction of the boundary wall, being raised by them. 3. In response to the petitioners' plaint, the defendants have filed a written statement, wherein they not only denied the contents of the plaint but have also stated that the document of title namely ‘patta’ relied upon by the petitioners is forged. The defendants had also denied the petitioners' title and possession for the contentious land. 4. Faced with such situation, the plaintiffs deemed it appropriate to file a rejoinder, for which they moved an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to submit the same. 5. The defendants had also denied the petitioners' title and possession for the contentious land. 4. Faced with such situation, the plaintiffs deemed it appropriate to file a rejoinder, for which they moved an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to submit the same. 5. The learned Trial Court has rejected petitioners' such application and refused the leave to file rejoinder, vide the order impugned dated 24.03.2015, with the following finding:— ^^vkns'k 8 fu;e 9 fl-iz-l- lafgrk ds rgr tokc&my&tokc rHkh izLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS tc izfroknhx.k us tokc nkok esa ,sls rF;ksa dks mYys[k fd;k gks tks iwoZ ls oknh dh tkudkjh esa ugh gks rFkk izfroknhx.k }kjk mBk;s x;s rF;ksa dk tokc izLrqr fd;k tkuk izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vko';d Hkh gksA bLrxr okn esa oknh }kjk vius okni= esa ftl bdjkjukek dk gokyk fn;k gS ml bdjkjukek ls vufHkKrk tkfgj djrs gq, izfroknh us mls QthZ crk;k gS rFkk nwljk oknhx.k ftl Hkw&Hkkx ij viuk dCtk gksuk crk;k gS mlds tokc esa izfroknhx.k us oknhx.k dk dCtk ugh ekudj j.kNksMkjke] dsoyjke o jk.kkjke dh iRuh dk dCTkk gksuk crk;k gSA vfHkopuksa ds fu;eksa ds rgr tokc nkok ds mUk rF;ksa dks fy[kk tkuk vko';d gksrk gS ftudk okn esa fookfnr fgLlksa dks lkfcr djuk gksrk gSA oknhx.k }kjk vius okni= esa fd;s x, vfHkdFkuksa dks tokc nkok esa vLohdkj djus gsrq izfroknhx.k LoRka= gSA izfroknhx.k vius tokc nkok esa vfrfjDr rF;ksa dk Hkh mYys[k dj ldrk gSA izfroknhx.k ds tokc nkok ds voyksdu ls bl U;k;ky; ds fouez jk; esa ,slk dksbZ rF; izdV ugha gksrk gS ftldk tokc&my&tokc fn;k tkuk vko';d izrhr gksrk gSA izfroknhx.k dks cspkuukek dh tkudkjh jgh gS ;k ugha Hkh jgh gS] orZeku esa fookfnr Hkw&Hkkx ij dCtk fdl i{kdkj dk gS rFkk cspkuukek QthZ gS\ bu lHkh rF;ksa dks fuLrkj.k fopkj.k esa mHk; i{kdkjku dh lk{; ys[kc) dh tkdj gh fd;k tk ldsxkA vr% bl Lrj ij bu rF;ksa ds laca/k es i'pkr~orhZ vfHkopuksa }kjk okn dks yack fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugh gksrk gSA vr% oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr tokc&my&tokc dks vfHkys[k ij fy;s tkus dk izkFkZuki= Lohdkj ;ksX; izrhr ugh gksrk gSA^^ 6. Mr. Mr. Amit Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with a view to assail the order dated 24.03.2015, submitted that the defendants have not only denied the averments made in the plaint but have also gone to the extent of alleging that the petitioners' patta was forged, which assertion was beyond the pleadings and the scope of the suit; for which filing of rejoinder was necessary. 7. Ms. Shambhavi Mardia, appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that the Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion and refused to grant leave to file rejoinder; and that the Court in its extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere in such discretionary order. 8. In support of her contention, Ms. Mardia relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in RLW 2012 (3) Raj 2152 in case of (Babu Bhai Kashyap v. Praful Chand Contractor), to buttress her stance that the order of learned Court below is in conformity with the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment aforesaid. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to reproduce the principles laid down by this Court in Babu Bhai Kashyap's case (supra), which are as infra:— “9. The principles deducible from the above discussions may be summarised thus- (a) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. (b) In rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts which have been incorporated in the written statement. (c) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in his rejoinder. (d) The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action. (e) Application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as both are contextually different.” 11. If the factual matrix of the case is considered, in light of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment above referred, it is apparent that the subject application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners deserved to be allowed. 12. If the factual matrix of the case is considered, in light of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment above referred, it is apparent that the subject application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners deserved to be allowed. 12. A perusal of the proposed rejoinder submitted by the petitioners reveals that the plaintiffs have neither sought to introduce new facts nor they are seeking amendment of the plaint by way of proposed rejoinder. The plaintiffs have rather tried to controvert additional fact brought on record by the defendants, by way of the written statement, which, as a matter of fact were beyond the scope of the suit. 13. In overall analysis of the facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in refusing the plaintiffs to file rejoinder. 14. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 24.03.2015 is quashed and set aside. The proposed rejoinder already filed by the plaintiffs is ordered to be taken on record.