SUDHA S Vs. JAYALAKSHMI A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the plaintiff in OS.No.594/2019 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the trial Court') is directed against the impugned order dtd. 4/1/2020 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') for permission to file a reply/rejoinder to the written statement was rejected by the trial Court.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(3.) The material on record discloses that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. It is undisputed that the defendant No.1 is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the brother and sisters of the plaintiff. The suit schedule properties involves the estate of Late Sri. B.C.Anantharamaiah [husband of the defendant No.1 and father of the parties]. In the written statement, respondent Nos.1 and 2- defendant Nos.1 and 2, in addition to disputing and denying the various contentions and claims put forth by the plaintiffs have propounded the Will dtd. 11/6/2010 said to have been executed by Sri. B.C.Anantharamaiah. It is therefore contended that by virtue of the last Will and Testament dtd. 11/6/2010, the defendant No.2 has became the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and the suit was liable to be dismissed. After the written statement of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was filed whereby the Will was propounded by them, the petitionerplaintiff filed the instant application invoking Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC seeking permission to file a rejoinder/reply to the written statement.