ANKUR MISHRA Vs. SAJJAN RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC was rejected.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, the defendant-respondent in their written statement setup a defence that the amount was not paid and the demand draft meant to pay the installments was withdrawn by the plaintiff himself. It is contended that the plaintiff has moved a detailed application clearly pointing out the new facts asserted by the defendant and the reasons why a rejoinder is required to be filed for the same.

(3.) It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order, the court below has merely mentioned that the suit can be decided without considering the rejoinder and on this ground, the application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC has been rejected.