JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The case comes up on an application for preponement of the date preferred by the respondent. 2. The application is not opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the matter is being heard and decided today itself. 4. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 126/2011, whereby the application preferred by the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC was allowed and the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 was taken on record. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order passed by the learned trial court on 14.03.2014 is totally unreasoned and non-speaking order whereby the application preferred by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 8 Rule 9 was allowed. The learned Senior counsel submits that merely recording the finding that the trial court had gone through the contents of rejoinder and recorded that it has just clarified the averments in plaint without discussing the same in the order is improper and incorrect. He, therefore, submits that to allow the application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for taking the rejoinder on record, the learned trial court should have recorded the reasons. More So, when no pleadings other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the court as per the order 8 Rule 9 CPC. In this case, since the trial court allowed the application preferred by the plaintiff-respondent for taking the rejoinder on record, the reasons should have been recorded. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the learned trial court may be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel Mr. Manish Shishodia assisted by Mr. Yash Parihar vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that it was sufficient for the trial court to have stated in the order that it had gone through the pleadings presented before it and the same was perused by it and, therefore, the same need not be discussed. Manish Shishodia assisted by Mr. Yash Parihar vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that it was sufficient for the trial court to have stated in the order that it had gone through the pleadings presented before it and the same was perused by it and, therefore, the same need not be discussed. In these circumstances, it can safely be presumed that the trial court had examined the pleadings on record and came to the conclusion that rejoinder is mere a clarification of the averments made in the plaint and the scope of the suit has not been enlarged by way of filing the rejoinder. He, therefore, prays that the application preferred under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC has rightly been allowed by the trial court and does not warrant any interference by this court in the supervisory jurisdiction. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the pleadings as well as the impugned order dated 14.03.2014. 8. A perusal of the order dated 14.03.2014 shows that the learned trial court though recorded the fact that it had gone through the pleadings placed before it and after perusal of the same, it came to the conclusion that in rejoinder, only the contentions raised in the plaint were clarified and they are in no way enlarge the scope of the suit. This court finds that since Order 8 Rule 9 CPC permits the filing of the pleadings after the written statement only to the extent of defence to set off or counter claim, then in such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the trial court to record the reasons for permitting any further pleading after filing of the written statement by the defendants. In my considered view, merely stating that the trial court had gone through the pleadings is not sufficient to record the satisfaction that there is no material change in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs in this case. Although, a detailed discussion is not required, but at least a comparative discussion of the pleadings of the plaint and rejoinder were required to be taken note of to come to the conclusion that there is no material change in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff. Although, a detailed discussion is not required, but at least a comparative discussion of the pleadings of the plaint and rejoinder were required to be taken note of to come to the conclusion that there is no material change in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff. For brevity, Para 6 of the impugned order dated 14.03.2014 is reproduced as under:- ^^6- fo}ku vf/koDrk çfroknh }kjk bl lanHkZ esa tks fyf[kr cgl is'k dh xbZ gSa] mldk Hkh vksdu fØ;koknh us tkc&tkc ds ek/;e ls 1 xk;r 32 i`"B is'k fd;s gSa] mldk Hkh eSus vksdu fd;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk çfroknh la[;k 1 xk;r 6 dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl 1 xk;r 21 i`"B dh is'k dh mldk Hkh eSus lknj vksdu fd;k rFkk çLrqr nks&tkc nks dk Hkh vksdu fd;kA ;s lHkhZ jsdkMZ ij gSaA vr% budk ;gka foospu djuk mfpr ugha gSa] ysfdu buds vksdu ls ;g ckr lkeus vk;h gSa fd tks çfroknh us tkc nks esa tks dFku fd;s gSa] tkcq tkc ds ek/;e ls oknh us iqu% Li"V djrs gq, dFku fd;s gSaA vkns'k 8 fu;e 9 nh-ç-la- dh ;gh ea'kk gSa fd i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopZu Li"V gks] rkfd U;k; fu.kZ; esa lqxerk gksA çfroknh us tks u;s rF; dFkuksa ls badkjh dh gS] oknh us tkc ds ek/;e ls vkSj nLrostksa dks nsdj bl lanHkZ esa vius tkcq tkc esa dFku fd;k gSaA fo}ku vf/koDrk çfroknh }kjk tks cgl ds nkSjku fyf[kr rdZ is'k fd;s gSa] lHkh lk{; ds foospu ds fcUn gwSa tks bl LVst ij Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugh gSaA vr% esjs fouez er esa çdj.k ds U;k; fu.kZ; dh lqxerk gsrq tkcq tkc tks oknh }kjk is'k fd;k x;k gSa] mldks jsdMZ ijsxuk U;k; laxr gSaA vr% oknh dh vksj ls çLrqr çkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 8 fu;e 9 nh-ç-la- Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA** 9. A bare perusal of para 6 of the impugned order shows that there is no discussion/deliberation on the point discussed in the preceding para. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the application preferred under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC afresh by a speaking order after recording the reasons. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the application preferred under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC afresh by a speaking order after recording the reasons. Since the matter is pending consideration for a period of more than eight years, the trial court is directed to decide the application as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from today after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties.