JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.01.2022, passed by the learned 15 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exhibit-105, in Special Civil Suit No.642/2004, rejecting the application for leave to file rejoinder. 3. In short the case of the Petitioner is that there was a Deed of Partition, registered on 14.05.2004, in respect of property of late Bhupendranath S/o Ramchandra Nagpure, bearing Plot No.206/12, situated at Civil Lines, Nagpur. The said Deed of Partition, which was registered on 14.05.2004, have challenged by Smt. Vatsalabai wd/o. Bhupendranath Nagpurey, mother of the Petitioner, Yogeshkumar Nagpurey, Amol Nagpurey and Smt. Alpana Takhalate vide filing of Special Civil Suit No.642/2004, thereby sought decree of declaration, partition and permanent injunction stating that the same is not binding upon her, as the same having been obtained by playing fraud upon her and misrepresentation. In the said suit, eldest son Amol was joined as defendant No.1, another son Yogesh - defendant No.2, married daughter Alpana - defendant No.3 and youngest son Vinay was joined as defendant No.4. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed their written statement. The defendant No.4 also filed his written-statement supporting the claim filed by the original plaintiff Vatsalabai. The defendant No.2 did not file any written-statement. After the death of defendant No.1 – Amol Nagpurey, his legal representatives i.e.Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) were brought on record. 4. There is a Will executed by Vatsalabai Nagpurey on 26.10.2004 in favour of Vinay Nagpurey – defendant No.4. Vatsalabai Nagpurey died on 17.08.2009. Therefore, the original defendant No.4 – Vinay Nagpurey, in light of Will, sought his transposition from array of Defendant to array of Plaintiff, which was allowed by the Court on 28.01.2016 and thereby defendant No.4 came to be transposed on record as Plaintiff, as legatee of original plaintiff. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) vide Exhibit-68, moved an application for seeking permission to consequential amendment in written-statement along with Counter Claim and also moved an application vide Exhibit- 83, seeking permission to raise Counter Claim in written-statement. On 12.01.2018, both the applications came to be allowed. Thereafter, application below Exhibit-87 for review of the order dated 12.01.2018 was filed. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) vide Exhibit-68, moved an application for seeking permission to consequential amendment in written-statement along with Counter Claim and also moved an application vide Exhibit- 83, seeking permission to raise Counter Claim in written-statement. On 12.01.2018, both the applications came to be allowed. Thereafter, application below Exhibit-87 for review of the order dated 12.01.2018 was filed. The Trial Court on 28.11.2018, allowed the application Exhibit-87, and thereby both the order passed below Exhibit-68 and 83, came to be set aside and matter was directed to be reheard to the limited extent on the aspect of point framed in the order. After rehearing, the learned Trial Court on 13.03.2019, allowed the applications at Exhibit-68 and 83 respectively and accordingly written- statement duly amended and Counter Claim was also raised by Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d). On 30.12.2019, the Petitioner filed written-statement to the Counter Claim raised by Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d). So far as an allegations made by Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) in the written-statement by way of amendment, the Petitioner filed an application below Exhibit-105 under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking leave to file Rejoinder and also copy of Rejoinder is filed along with it. It is submitted that due reason for necessity to file rejoinder is given in the application, however, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application – Exhibit-105. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the application on the ground that the Petitioner while filing of the written-statement to the Counter Claim, could have raised the ground, which he intends to bring on record by way of rejoinder. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 27.01.2022. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the ratio laid down in the referred judgments. It is also incorrect on the part of the learned Trial Court in observing that the plaintiff has not disclosed the necessity to file rejoinder. In fact, it is specifically mentioned in the application that in view of amendment in the written-statement, the defendant have raised and suggested misleading aspects and misleading submission, due to which, the present Petitioner/plaintiff have been constrained to file rejoinder, so as to meet out the same. In fact, it is specifically mentioned in the application that in view of amendment in the written-statement, the defendant have raised and suggested misleading aspects and misleading submission, due to which, the present Petitioner/plaintiff have been constrained to file rejoinder, so as to meet out the same. The plaintiff also seek leave of the Court by placing on record rejoinder, so as to enable the plaintiff to put his reply by way of rejoinder, to the amended portion of the written statement. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is relied on the case of Smt. Gandla Laxmi and Ors. Vs. Smt. G. Ashavva and Ors., AIR 2019 Hyderabad 68 , wherein para 7 it held as under : “The necessity to allow subsequent pleadings emanates from the basic principle that no party to the proceeding can lead evidence, unless a foundation is laid for it, in the pleadings. In the ordinary course, a plaintiff would be permitted to lead evidence to substantiate the contents of the plaint; and the defendant, the contents of the written statement. Where, however, apart from denying the contents of a plaint, the defendant pleads certain additional facts, a necessity will arise for the plaintiff to deal with the same. If the additional facts pleaded by the defendant are such, as would belie the contention of the plaintiff, or result in denial of relief to him, the plaintiff has to be given the right to put forward his version, in relation to the same. Such a facility cannot be extended to the plaintiff by permitting him to amend the plaint, because of the fact that the circumstances, under which a pleading can be amended, are totally different. Since the corresponding version of the plaintiff in replication to the additional facts, pleaded by defendant, does not form part of the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff would be disabled from leading evidence on those aspects, and to that extent the adjudication would be incomplete” 8. The learned Counsel also relied on judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 487/2010 ( Smt. Usha w/o Raman Dangra Vs. The learned Counsel also relied on judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 487/2010 ( Smt. Usha w/o Raman Dangra Vs. Tirupati Developers through its partner Shri Gopaldas Rathi and another), decided on 28 th October, 2014, in which it is held that, “The provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter- claim shall be presented except with the leave of the Court. If the plaintiff wants to make any pleadings by way of defence to set-off or counter claim, the leave of the Court is not required and the plaintiff can file pleadings as of right. However, if any pleadings subsequent to filing of the written statement are to be filed by the plaintiff except by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim, the plaintiff is required to take leave of the Court. The learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order misreading the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure .” 9. In the impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff could have alleged all the facts in the written-statement. It is also not considered that for additional pleadings, after filing of written- statement and counter claim, leave is required of the Court to place such additional pleadings unless that pleadings are the part of the plaint, the plaintiff may not be able to lead evidence on the same. The learned Trial Court has not considered the ratio laid down by this Court and misdirected itself and rejected the application. 10. In my considered view, there is a reason given for necessity to file rejoinder in the application itself. Apart from that, the rejoinder is there with the application. In view of that position, the learned 15 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur has to be allowed the application – Exhibit-105. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 12. The order dated 27.01.2022, passed by the learned 15 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exhibit-105, in Special Civil Suit No.642/2004, is hereby quashed and set aside. The application Exhibit-105 is allowed. 13. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 12. The order dated 27.01.2022, passed by the learned 15 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exhibit-105, in Special Civil Suit No.642/2004, is hereby quashed and set aside. The application Exhibit-105 is allowed. 13. The learned 15 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur is hereby directed to take on record the Rejoinder, filed by the plaintiff and proceed with the matter. 14. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.