ORDER : S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J. This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.87/2013 is directed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.VI by the Additional Civil Judge in JMFC, Challakere, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking leave to file replication/reply/rejoinder/subsequent pleadings in response to certain documents produced by the defendant No.1 during the course of evidence was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, both parties went to trial and the matter was posted for final arguments at which stage the petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant application I.A.No.VI for grant of leave/permission to replication/reply/rejoinder/subsequent pleading by way of response to the documents produced by defendant No.1. The said application having been opposed by the respondents-defendant No.1, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the plaintiff in a suit would be entitled to file replication or reply only to the written statements/pleadings of the defendants and a reply/rejoinder/replication cannot be filed by a plaintiff to the evidence produced by the defendants. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial Court held as under: “ORDERS ON IA No.VI The present application is filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave of this Hon'ble Court to file replication/subsequent pleadings in response to certain documents produced by the 1st defendant during the course of his evidence, particularly an agreement of marriage that allegedly includes reference to certain movable articles relevant to the subject matter of the suit. 2. The application is supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff, wherein it is averred that the said document was produced at the during the examination in chief of defendant No 1 which necessitates reply to it. 2. The application is supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff, wherein it is averred that the said document was produced at the during the examination in chief of defendant No 1 which necessitates reply to it. It is submitted that it is not practicable to seek an amendment to the plaint at this stage and that law permits a party to file replication or rejoinder in appropriate circumstances where the opposite party introduces new facts or documents during trial, with the leave of the Court. 3. The defendants have filed objections to the application, opposing the grant of leave. It is contended that the law does not permit the plaintiff to file a reply merely in response to documents produced during evidence, especially in the absence of a counter-claim. The defendants further allege that the application is an abuse of the process of Court and is intended to delay the proceedings. 4. On the basis of the above, point for consideration is that: "Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds for granting leave permitting him to file replication/subsequent pleading by allowing the application?" 5. This Court have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the pleadings, the impugned application, the affidavit, the objections, placed on record. On that basis, finding of this Court on the above point is in the "Negative" for the following: Reasons: 6. Point No.1 The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff can be permitted to file a replication/subsequent pleading at this stage of the suit, particularly to rebut the contents of a document le.. agreement introduced by the 1" defendant during his evidence. 7. Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC clearly lays down that "No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court..." This provision vests discretion in the Court to allow subsequent pleadings when necessary in the interests of justice. 8. 8. The plaintiff relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Krishnamurthy v. Hanumakka & Others, 2019 (4) KCCR 3032 , to contend that filing of a replication is permissible even in the absence of a counter-claim, provided that the pleading is confined to addressing new facts or documents brought in by the other side, and that such leave must not be denied mechanically. It is pertinent to extract para 6 and 7 of the in which the Hon'ble High Court has discussed earlier Judgments on the very same aspect. "6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Noronha, J) in the case of R. Dayananda Sagar v. Vatal Nagaraj [(1972) 2 Mys LJ 328.], at para 13 observed: Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code refers to a pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant, to be filed by leave of the Court. The word "pleading" would, as it appears to me, include a reply Statement of the plaintiff. In the case of Mohammed Abdul Gafoor v Peddappayachari [RSA No. 585/1974], another Co-ordinate Bench (G.N. Sabhahit, J) observed that. Order Vill Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure which speaks of subsequent pleadings makes it manifest that, if, in the written statement, the defendant sets out a counter-claim or claims a set off, the plaintiff has a right of reply to the written statement and that forms part of the pleadings. If the plaintiff wants to file an additional statement, however, in other cases, he has to seek and take the permission of the Court The Apex Court in the case of K. Laxmanan v. Thekkyil Padmini ( (2009) 1 SCC 354 AIR 2009 SC 951 ), at paragrapn 31 observed "31. Pleadings as we understand under the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the "Code") and as is defined under the provision of Rule 1 Order VI of the Code consist only of a plaint and a written statement The respondents/plaintiff could have filed replication in respect to the plea raised in the written statement, which if allowed by the Court would have become the part of the pleadings, but mere non filing of a replication does not and could not mean that there has been admission of the facts pleaded in the written statement." 7. Yet another Co-ordinate Bench (Ajit J. Gunjal, J) in the case of Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Yet another Co-ordinate Bench (Ajit J. Gunjal, J) in the case of Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd v. referring to Dayananda Sagar Case supra, at para 10 observed "Order 8 Rule 9 would deal with a subsequent pleading which is filed subsequent to the filing of written statement of a defendant. It is not a case where the rejoinder is being filed to claim a set off or a counter claim. It is in the nature of a replication filed to the written statement, which is always permissible under the law. The Code of Civil Procedure for from pinning down the plaintiff to the plaint and the defendant to the written statement does contemplate further pleading. It is permissible to the plaintiff petitioner to file a replication to add to his pleas already made in the plaint. The only condition is the leave of the Court. It is only meant for denying or clarifying the facts stated in the written statement Fresh cause of action or fresh case is not brought about by filing replication. It is mainly clarificatory in nature. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the Learned Trial Judge was not justified in rejecting the leave to file replication on the ground that it does not squarely fall under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 9. The Hon'ble High Court in Krishna murthy's case mentioned supra by considering the decision in R.Dayananda Sagar's Case, Mohammed Abdul Gafoor's case, Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd's Case as extracted herein above has given leave to file reply by holding ad under. "granting of leave to the petitioner/plaintiff to file Additional Pleadings by way of Reply/Replication to the contentions in the Written Statement would prejudice none Conversely, denial of leave is likely to prejudice the petitioner/plaintif, although the non-denial by hims of the contentions in the Witten Statement would not amount to their admission at all 10. Thus from perusal of the above decision and the order Vi rule 9 it stands clarified that additional pleadings other than reply to counterclaim or set off can be filed but with leave of the Court and the Court is granted discretion. Decision in Krishna murthy's case mentioned supra which is passed by considering the decision in R. Dayananda Sagar's Case, Mohammed Abdul Gafoor's case, Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Decision in Krishna murthy's case mentioned supra which is passed by considering the decision in R. Dayananda Sagar's Case, Mohammed Abdul Gafoor's case, Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd's Case guides this Court in exercising the discretion. 11. At the cost of repetition, R.Dayananda Sagar's Case Mohammed Abdul Gafoor's case clarifies that additional pleadings can be filed with leave of the Court. In Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd's Case since the additional pleading sought in that case was meant for denying or clarifying the facts stated in the written statement and that no Fresh cause of action or fresh case is not brought about by filing replication, the plaintiff was granted the leave. In Krishna murthy's leave was granted since it was reply to written statement and no prejudice was caused to other party Applying this to the case on hand this Court has perused the replication/ subsequent pleading annexed along with the application. The same clarifies that a new aspect of registered partition dated 18.06. 1981 is pleaded which is neither pleaded by defendant in their written statement nor by the plaintiff in the earlier plaint. And the entire pleadings is with respect the said aspect. Thus it is clear that replication/subsequent pleading sought to be filed is not for clarifying the aspect in the written statement but a new fact is pleaded. This Obviously prejudice the other party i.e. defendant. Further the plaintiff himself in the affidavit annexed to the application has averred that since plaint cannot be amended, the present application is filed. Which supports that an effort is made to bring new facts 12. Thus it can be concluded that by replication/subsequent pleading the plaintiff is not replying the document or contents of the written statement but is trying to bring forth new fact. The decision Krishnamurthy v. Hanumakka & Others, 2019 (4) KCCR 3032 is not applicable to case on hand because in concluding para no. 11 sufficing reason for granting leave the Hon'ble High court has held that since additional pleading was reply to contentions of the written statement which does not prejudice the party, the leave was granted. This decision is not applicable to case on hand as new facts are pleaded and present. 11 sufficing reason for granting leave the Hon'ble High court has held that since additional pleading was reply to contentions of the written statement which does not prejudice the party, the leave was granted. This decision is not applicable to case on hand as new facts are pleaded and present. Further the plaintiff has also relied on W.P No. 47014-47015 of 2014 Syed Abed Hussain and another V/s Thahera Banu and others, in this case subsequent pleading were permitted since written statement was amended Hence not applicable to case on hand. 13. Due to the above discussions and aspects, considering the Krishna murthy's case which is passed by considering the decision in R. Dayananda Sagar's Case, Mohammed Abdul Gafoor's case. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd's Case mentioned supra, this Court is of view that the plaintiff has not made out any grounds to grant leave for filing subsequent pleadings. Accordingly, the Court has answered the point in "Negative" and proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The I.A No.6 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.” 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has correctly and properly considered the material on record including the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 9 CPC and the application filed by the petitioner wherein she sought to file replication/reply to the evidence adduced by defendant No.1 and not to the written statement, which is impermissible in law. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as held in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Ors Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. – (2015) 5 SCC 423 , K.P. Natarajan and Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors. – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477 . 5. Chhabi Nath and Ors. – (2015) 5 SCC 423 , K.P. Natarajan and Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors. – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477 . 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be reserved in favour of the petitioner- plaintiff to file an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC putting forth additional contentions/facts/pleadings and the said application may be directed to be considered by the trial Court as expeditiously as possible. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that in the event the petitioner-plaintiff files such an application, the respondents should be permitted to file objections and contest the said application. 7. Submissions of both sides are placed on record. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned Order ii) Liberty is reserved to file an application for amendment of the plaint by putting forth additional pleadings/facts/grounds etc. iii) In the event, the petitioner files such an application, the trial Court shall consider the same by providing an opportunity to the respondents to file objections and consider the said application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.