RAJNEE RANI Vs. SHYAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders dtd. 19/12/2018 and 12/2/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby the two replications filed by the petitioners, though having permitted to be filed, but it has been stated in the impugned order dtd. 12/2/2019 that the same would not be part of the pleadings. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.3 and filed his memorandum of appearance. Same is taken on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that once replication is permitted to be filed it is to be treated as part of the pleadings as defined under Order 6 Rule 1 CPC. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments :

(3.) In the present case, no doubt a statement had been made as noticed in the order dtd. 19/12/2018 that no replication was to be filed but subsequently the replications were filed as noticed in the order dtd. 12/2/2019. However, vide the impugned order dtd. 12/2/2019 it has been stated that the same would not become part of the pleadings. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Laxmanan (supra) has held as under :