Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1006 (RAJ)

Arvind Kumar Jain v. ICICI Bank Limited

2022-03-29

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Civil Court whereby application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, for filing rejoinder has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent-Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents filed written statement and they have taken certain preliminary objections in the written statements and further also denied parawise averments made in the plaint. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after filing of the written statement by the respondents, issues were framed by the Civil Court and on the basis of averments made in the written statement, an issue No.4 has been framed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after framing of the issue by the Civil Court on the basis of pleading in the written statement, the petitioners were left with no other choice except to file an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for seeking permission to file rejoinder to the written statement. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below by impugned order dated 09.01.2019 has rejected the application of the petitioners by holding that no additional plea has been taken by the respondents, which warrants filing of rejoinder. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue with regard to the misconduct being committed by the petitioners or not, was solely based on the plea which was raised by the respondents in the written statement and it had become imperative on the part of the petitioners to controvert the said pleadings by way of filing the rejoinder. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the very purpose of filing subsequent pleadings/rejoinder will be frustrated if any party to the suit proceedings is not permitted to controvert the pleadings which are taken by the other side and in particular when new pleas are raised. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the issue which has been framed by the court below, needs to be decided after proper pleadings are made by the parties and as such the court below has committed an error while rejecting the application. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the issue which has been framed by the court below, needs to be decided after proper pleadings are made by the parties and as such the court below has committed an error while rejecting the application. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the court below has not committed any illegality in passing the order. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention to this Court towards application filed by the petitioners for seeking permission of placing the rejoinder on record. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners in their application nowhere mentioned that in which para new pleading was made by the respondent-Bank in the written statement. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners ought to have specifically pleaded, as the rejoinder was required to be controverted in respect of specific pleadings which are alleged to be taken by the respondents in the written statement. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the court below while considering the contents of the application has rightly refused to take rejoinder on record. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the rejoinder which was sought to be filed by the petitioners also reiterated the same facts which were taken in the plaint and as such the court below has not committed any illegality. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the issue of misconduct or any other issue which has been framed by the court below was only on the basis of original plaint which was filed by the petitioners and subsequent written statement filed by the respondent-Bank. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no new fact was brought on record which could have permitted filing of the rejoinder. 18. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 19. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by learned counsel for the respondents. 20. This Court finds that the court below after filing of written statement framed issues and in particular issue No.4 has been framed on the basis of alleged misconduct said to be committed by the plaintiff. 21. 19. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by learned counsel for the respondents. 20. This Court finds that the court below after filing of written statement framed issues and in particular issue No.4 has been framed on the basis of alleged misconduct said to be committed by the plaintiff. 21. This Court finds that in the written statement filed by the respondents, preliminary objections have been taken and respondent-Bank has also made certain additional pleas which are required to be controverted by the petitioner by way of filing rejoinder. 22. This Court finds that if the issues are framed after pleadings are completed by the parties like filing of plaint, written statement and further new facts have come on record, which need to be controverted, the very purpose of Order 8 Rule 9 would be frustrated, if the parties will be deprived to file their pleadings. 23. The submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that the court below has considered the contents of application, which has been filed, which did not disclose any reason, suffice it to say by this Court that if the petitioners have sought permission by making out a case that new facts have been mentioned in the written statement, the court below ought to have considered this aspect of the matter. 24. This Court accordingly finds that the order dated 09.01.2019 needs to be set-aside and the same is accordingly set-aside. 25. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 9 stands allowed and court below will proceed accordingly. 26. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.