RAJU & ANR Vs. HARLAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Beawar, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed an application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that during the course of trial, after the defendant No. 1/4, Dakhu, has submitted her written statement, the petitioners had filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for taking the rejoinder on record. However, by order dated 18.9.2012, the said application has been dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Dhruv Atrey, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has pleaded that three reasons, given by the learned Magistrate are untenable. The learned Magistrate is unjustified in concluding that only legal objections have been raised in the additional pleas submitted by the defendant No.1/4. According to him a bare perusal of the written statement clearly reveals that beside raising legal objections, defendant has also stated certain facts, which need to be countered by filing the rejoinder. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with.