S VENKATA RAMANAIAH Vs. S VENKATESWARLU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 20. 4. 2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period.

(2.) SRI M. S. R. Subrahmanyam, entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 6 in the Civil Revision Petition are specified as not necessary parties to the petition.

(3.) SRI Rathangapani Reddy, the learned counsel representing revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2, would maintain that the learned Principal Junior civil Judge, Dhone, totally erred in allowing the application by granting permission to the first respondent/plaintiff to file rejoinder without considering the fact that two years ago written statement had been filed. The learned counsel also would maintain that the first respondent/plaintiff having been unsuccessful in obtaining injunction thought of this application only with a view to fill up gaps by taking inconsistent pleas. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise they failed to file rejoinder within a reasonable time and after a long lapse of two years after filing the written statement, this application had been filed. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, two new pleas relating to the admissibility of the family settlement and whether it was acted upon and another plea relating to the fraud in relation to the sale deed, dated 4. 2. 1984, are being put forward and these pleas being new pleas or in a way inconsistent pleas with the original pleading, such pleas cannot be permitted to be raised by way of additional pleadings that is by way of rejoinder and hence, the Civil Revision Petition to be allowed. The learned counsel also had taken this court through the language of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.