HARI RAM Vs. MEESA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order dated 15. 09. 2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Merta by which the application u/o. 8 R. 9 CPC of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed, which was filed in Civil Misc. Case No. 120/2001.

(2.) THE plaintiff submitted that in reply to the injunction application some new facts have come on record in the reply of the non-petitioner-defendants. THErefore, the plaintiff wants to explain the facts. I perused the facts mentioned in the application and perused the impugned order. THE trial Court rejected the application u/o. 8 R. 9 CPC only on the ground that plaintiff wants to file a rejoinder, which is different from the plaint allegations (bereft of the facts of the suit ). It appears that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the effect of the provisions of O. 8 R. 9 CPC. O. 8 R. 9 CPC give ample power to the Courts to permit additional pleadings to the parties. When some new facts come in the reply to the application or the allegation of the plaint then it is always better to get the explanation over the new facts from other party so that the Court may come to a correct decision. THE trial Court though mentioned that plaintiff wants to file the rejoinder away from the suit but has not considered on what facts the new facts sought to be pleaded in the rejoinder are inconsistent or contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff and whether they are facts in reply to the reply of the defendant or not.