NARESH KUMAR SODHI Vs. HARI RAM CHAURASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed against the judgment dated 13.1.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in R.F.A. No.3112/2012 by virtue of which the judgment dated 17.10.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge in Suit No.616/1998 titled Hari Ram & Anr. vs. Santosh & Others was partially upheld.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has contended that respondent No.1 has not chosen to file replication to the written statement filed by the present appellants denying that the shop in respect of which a decree for possession was passed had a dimension of 5' x 4' and not 5' x 9'.3". He has sought to place reliance on Mateshwar Dayal vs. Amar Singh, 1983 AIR(P&H) 197 and Ram Lal and Another vs. Santosh Kumar Puri, 2009 SCC OnLine P& H 697, the two judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to contend that non -filing of rejoinder by respondent No.1 tantamounts to an admission of this aspect of the matter in the written statement.

(3.) I have considered the submissions and have also gone through the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. The judgments which have been sought to be relied upon by the appellants, in the instant case, have no applicability and do not lay down the propositions that non -filing of replication to the written statement would tantamount to an admission of a fact. Order VI Rule 1 CPC clearly lays down that pleadings constitutes of only the plaint and the written statement. Therefore, replication not being a part of the pleadings, need not be filed by a party.