(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Churachandpur in Judl. Misc. Case No. 3/ 2014(Old No. )/Judl.(Misc.)/1/2014(New No. ) arising out of O.S. No. 11 of 2011(old No. )/O.S./2/2014(New No. ) rejecting a plaint filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "CPC') seeking for leave to file a rejoinder to the additional written statement filed by the defendant/respondent.
(2.) AS it appears from the record, plaint was amended and a consolidated plaint was filed after amendment. The defendant who had earlier filed written statement was permitted to file an additional written statement and accordingly the additional written statement was filed by the defendant. Alleging that some new facts have been introduced in the additional written statement, the plaintiffs/ petitioners filed a petition under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC for grant of leave of the Court to file a rejoinder to the additional written statement. The learned Civil Judge, on reading of the contents of the additional written statement found that the statements made therein are only denial of the statements made in the amended plaint and no new facts have been alleged in the additional written statement. Accordingly having arrived at the above finding, the learned Civil Judge rejected the petition.
(3.) THERE is no dispute that the plaintiffs can seek for permission of the Court to file a rejoinder under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are the case of (1) State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Md. Ikbal & Others, reported in : AIR 1999 Rajasthan 169; (2) Sunil and Vasanth Architects and Consulting Engineers & Anr. v. Tata Ceramics Ltd., reported in : AIR 1999 Kerala 88. Reliance was also placed in the case of Shakoor and etc. v. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and Etc. reported in : AIR 1987 Rajasthan 19.