LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-243

MADHUKAR Vs. VILAS

Decided On December 14, 2020
MADHUKAR Appellant
V/S
VILAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. A.R. Vaidya waives service for the respondent No.1. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) In a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and injunction, after the respondent No.1 filed his written statement the petitioner straight away tendered a rejoinder (Exhibit-84). Simultaneously, he filed Application (Exhibit-89) seeking permission to allow him to file the rejoinder. The respondent No.1 opposed such filing of the rejoinder by putting his say to the effect that there was no provision to file such rejoinder. The learned Judge by the impugned common order rejected the Application (Exhibit-89) as well as refused to take on record the rejoinder (Exhibit-84) primarily on the ground that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to file such a rejoinder.

(3.) It transpires that the petitioner thereafter sought a review of this order by filing Application (Exhibit-92). The respondent No.1 opposed the application on the ground that it was not tenable as it did not disclose any ground provided in law enabling the learned Judge to review the order. By order dated 17.11.2017 the learned Judge refused to undertake a review and rejected the Application (Exhibit-92) on the ground that there was no discovery of new fact and there was no formal defect on the face of the record.