PULIVARTHI VENKATA SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. BABBURI VENKATA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.36 of 2019 in O.S.No.110 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the said I.A.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said I.A. under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking leave of the Court to file rejoinder to the written statement filed by respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3. The petitioner/plaintiff, filed the above said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.05.2006. The 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3, respondents in the present petition, filed their respective written statements. The petitioner filed the said I.A., inter alia, stating that the defendants 2 and 3, filed written statement with inconsistent pleas, raised additional pleas and contentions and as such, he was advised to file rejoinder to traverse the same. Along with the said I.A., the petitioner also filed rejoinder.

(3.) Respondents filed a counter stating inter alia that raising of new pleas and additional contentions etc, is not sufficient to seek permission to file rejoinder, that there are no cogent reasons for seeking the relief prayed for, as they have filed written statement on 01.06.2017 and that after commencement of trial, the petitioner is not entitled to file rejoinder. It is also stated in the counter that without explaining the reasons for the delay, the I.A. was filed only with a view to fill up the lacuna, which the plaintiff noticed in view of dismissal of O.S.Nos.465 and 789 of 2009 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada, which were filed by the persons in the group of the petitioner/plaintiff, and the same cannot be entertained. The trial Court, after considering the contentions advanced on both sides, dismissed the I.A. vide order dated 29.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present C.R.P.