RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. VIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 24/4/2024 passed by learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in civil suit No.233/2023 whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for taking the rejoinder on record, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 31/1/2024, a rejoinder was submitted by the petitioner along with an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, praying therein to take rejoinder on record. It is submitted that the said application was dismissed by learned trial Court without giving any cogent reasons. It is submitted that respondents-defendants mentioned additional facts in their written statement and in view of new facts which came on record, it became imperative for the petitioner to file rejoinder. Counsel submits that learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application as new facts were mentioned by the respondents-defendants in their written statement and same were to be controverted by the petitioner-plaintiff. In this regard, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Prime Properties Vs. Sana Lakshmi Devi (died) through her LRs and Ors. report in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1345.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.