Rule I of CPC would extend to a petition for temporary injunction as vs TATA Ceramics Ltd, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reiierated that

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of proceedings in 1.A.No.227 of 2O2O in O.S.No.52 ol 2020 on the file of the Honorable Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Chevella Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, pending disposal of above Revision. Counsel forthe Petitioner : Sri Suhas Counsel forthe Respondent : Sri Vasudev Reddy representing Sri K. Lakshmi Manohar The Gourt made the following: ORDER ) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.184 & 2o,6 of 2O2L COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions are liled under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.856 of 2O2O in I.A.No.227 of 2O2O in O.S.No.52 of 2O2O and C.R.P.No.184 of 2O2l which is filed being aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.B57 of 2O2O in O.S.No.52 of 2020. As both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same suit, though the C.R.P.No.2O6 of 2021 out of I.A.No.856 of 2O2O which is filed seeking leave to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed in the I.A.No.227 of 2O2O, whereas I.A.No.857 of 2O2O filed seeking permission to file a rejoinder in the sa.me suit, both the revisions are taken up together as they arise between the same parties and from the same suit.

2. Heard Sri Suhas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Vasudev Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri K.Lakshmi Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred herein as plaintiff and defendant. ,..t'' .r'-.,9 2 Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff who is the respondent herein has filed a suit o.S.No.52 of 2020 seeking a decree.in favor of the plaintiff for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. pending suit in I.A.No.27 of 2o2o was liled along with the suit under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of code of civil Procedure, 1908, seeking interim injunction against the respondent and restraining from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

4. Pending the suit and the said interrocutory application, the plaintiff herein filed the written statement as well as a counter in the interlocutory application. After filing of ttre written statement and the counter by the defendant, the plaintiff approachecl the trial Court I.A.No.856 of 2O2O in filing I.A.No.227 of 2o2o and so also I.A.No.859 of 2o2o in'o.s.No.S2 I of 2o2o seeking leave of the court to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed and the written statement. The said application ended in allowing of the application by trial court. Aggrieved by the s€une, the present revision is filed by the defendant on the grouna that the learned Judge before the trial 1 3 Court did not appreciate the pleadings and record, and that the ord.er is passed against the principles of natural justice, and that the plaintiff should not be permitted to expand the scope of the case by adding pleadings which were suppressed earlier. 5,, It is contended that there were no valid reasons assigned by the respondents in their applications and that the learned Judge did not apply the principles under order VIII Rule 9 CPC' It is further contended that the plaintiff is attempting to introd.uce new pleadings under the guise of a rejoinder and that the learned Judge failed to consider that the suit being one for injunction simpliciter, title disputes cannot be entertained'

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the learned senior counsel for the respond.ents/defendants, learned counsel for the defendant argued and contended that the plaintiff under the guise of rejoinder wanted to bring new facts though the facts ttiat the petitioner intending to bring on record which are already to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the said aspects which the plaintiff intend to bring on record are being suppressed by the plaintiff and he also pointed out that physically there is no land is existing and that the plaintiffs having the knowledge that there \ 4 was a development agreement and other documents which are executed, having knowledge about the same, now under the guise of ttre rejoinder they want to bring on record the new facts which they having knowledge much prior to filing of the suit and they intend to extend the scope of the suit and he contended that the same are impermissible under law. He also relied upon the judgment of the Honbre supreme court cited in umad.eut and. Others as Anolnd. Kumar and. Othersl, Stotte of RaJasthan and. Anoiler as. Moltammed. Ikbat and OtherlP, M.E.Chandrappa os. M.E.BasaaarJ and Others on the file of Eon'ble Htgh Court of Karnataka at Bengalunrs and he also further argued that the said rejoinder is impermissible and the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the petitioner as under the guise of the rejoinder the petition as intending to being new facts and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. In contra the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has argued and contended that the counter affidavit in I.A. and ' 2025 (5) SCC 198 2 1998 SCC OnLine Raj 46 3 W .P.N1.2O4Z9 of 2022 , / a 5 forthewrittenstatementiswellwithintheparameterarrdScope oforder8RulegofCodeofCivilProcedure,lgosandhealso pointedoutcertainfactualaspectsandhealsofurtherpointed that under the rejoinder the plaintiff intending to deny the aspect which the defendants have wanted to bring it by way of pleadingsinthewrittenstatementandthatthereisnonewfact beingbroughtinanditisonlyadenialoftheassertionsmadein thewrittenstatementand.nonewpleadingsarebroughtinand healsoarguedthattheaspectswhicharebeingintendedtobe brought on record is that as the suit is for simpliciter injunction andthattherespondents/defendanthavealreadyfiledwritten statementdenyingtheareaandexistenceofthesuitlandand a]sothed'ocumentswhicharefiledbytheplaintiff.Hefurther contend.edthattheplaintiffisboundtodenythesaid submissionsbywayofrejoinderandhealsorelieduponthe judgmentrenderedbythedivisionbenchofthisCourtascitedin 2023 (1) ALT 773 (D'B'l' / S.Havingheardthecontentionsandrivalcontentionsofboth thecounsel,nodoubtunderorderBRulegoftheCodeofCivil procedure there is a vide d.iscretion is vested upon the trial court topermitorrejecttheavermentswhich.{.intendedtobe _= \ \ 6 brought on record by way of filing the rejoinder and it has to be seen by the trial Court, that the averments which are intending to be brought on record by way of rejoinder cannot be contrary to the plaint pleadings and that no new facts which expands the scope of the suit is permissible and it is also not in dispute that under the guise of the rejoinder it is also permissible to bring the new facts basing on subsequent events. 9- In fact order 8 Rule 9 which deals as to the subsequent pleadings the same is extracted here for the sake of convenience: "No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave <lf the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same."

10. The plaint which is filed by the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff has explained the sources of his title of the property and in respect of the defendants they have pleaded about the DAGpA and also referred about the unapproved layouts and contended that the defendant was trying to interfere or grab their suit ,*/ -1 7 property and pursuant to the s€une the steps taken by the defendant are being averred in the plaint and in the written statement which shows that the defendants have in detail denied the averments and contentions of the plaintiff and also raised certain pleadings which are in respect of title of the defendants and also the execution of certain documents by their vendors. No doubt the entire return statements reflect about the title in respect of the vendors of the defendant. In view of the bringing out the various aspects by the defendants in respect of their title, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that as the said aspects has to be denied or rebutted by the plaintiff, which are made by the defendant and on perusal of the decisions which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant i.e., (2025) 5 SCC (198) is distinguishable on the facts that as the said judgment is in rblation of order 7 Rule 11 which is in respect of rejection of plaint though it refers in respect of the documents which are relied upon and as to the knowledge of the parties therein in respect of transactions which are also prior to the suit as such this Court is of the opinion that the said judgment is not much helpful to the defendants. coming to the judgment of the Rajasthan High court which is in respect of order 6 Rule LT and, I I I j ,I B :\ order 8 Rule 9 though deals with regarding the allowing of the rejoinder and the scope of it in relevant Para 9 of the judgment rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. "The principles deducible from the above discussions may be sunrmaarised, thus : a) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of frling b) In rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts c) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to come forward wittr an entirely new d) The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas so as to e) Application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC cannot be treated as one under which have been incorporated in the written statement. alter his original cause of action. case in his rejoinder. C)rder 6 Rule 17 CPC as both are contextually different. cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. Unreported judgment of High court of Karnataka in w.P.No2o479 of 2022 at relevant Para Nos.4 to 8. 4: Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri. Vigneshwar S.Shastry would support the order passed by the trial Court and submits that the petitioner/defendant No.7 in his earlier written statement had stated that defendant No.5 had executed gift deed in favour of defendant No.6 and defendant No.6 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property which came to be transferred under gift deed. On that basis, it is stated that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed. Learned counsel points out that, in the rejoinder the petitioner/defendant No.7 has totally changed his defense and has made out a new case at paragraphs 5 and 6 ofthe rejoinder, which would state that defendant No.6 in collusioq and connivance with the mother got created several documents so as to enrich himself illegally as she being an illiterate, had no worldly knowledge. Further, it is alleged against defendant No.6 that taking undue advantage of the same, he got created the documents. Thus, he would submit that such a new plea cannot be taken up in the rejoinder statement. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that if the rejoinder of the petitioner/defendant No.7 is allowed, it would totally change the nature of defense of the petitioner/plaintiff. ( t 9

5. On hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the trial Court rightly by reasoned order rejected I.A.No.36 filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC. Impugned order is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Suit of the respondents/plaintiffs is one for partition and for execution and registration of detailed deed of partition as per the unregistered partition deed dated 16.06.1993. Initially, suit was decreed under judgment and decree dated 03.10.2012 which was subject matter of R.A.No.23212012. Said R.A was allowed by setting aside judgment and decree dated 03.10.2012. Said remand order was the subject matter of MSA.No.l24l20l7 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 09.08.2021 confirming the remand order with certain observations. Relevant portion of Judgment in R.A.No.23212012 reads as follows: "The plaintiff shall implead all the necessary parties in the suit and plaintiff ts at liberty to file additional pleadings in the light of subsequent events and the defendants are also permitted to raise any additional plea f they are advised so. " First Appellate Court granted the parties, liberty to file additional pleadings in the light of subsequent events and also observed that defendants are also permitted to raise any additional plea, if they are advised so. In the guise of filing additional plea in terms of the above liberty, petitioner/defendant No.7 cannot take or raise entirely a new plea by way of rejoinder or replication.

7. It is settled position of law that rejoinder or replicatio-n could be filed to explain contentions already taken, but cannot raise new plea or make out new case.

8. Petitioner/defendant No.7 in his written statement filed originally had contended as follows at paragraph No. 9: t "9. This defendant submits that, item 2 Sy.No.47ll A of Agaradahalli and item 4 Sy.No.66llB of Agaradahalli shown in G schedule are the absolute Sthridhan a property of the defendant No.5 and nobody can question the alienation of these two properties by defendant No.5. The defendant No.5 has executed gift deeds in favour of 6th defendant with respect to the properties purchased by her husband in his name out of income from the- properties allotted to {I 10 the share of defendant No.6. The 6th defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of properties which came to be transferred under the gift deeds. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the suit." Petitioner/defendant No.7 contended that defendant No.5 had executed gift deed in favour of 6th defendant with respect to properties purchased by her husband in his name out of income from the properties allotted to the share of defendant No.6 and it is also contended that defendant No.6 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs. In contra the learned Senior counsel relied upon judgment rendered by the division bench of this court which squarely related to Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC and discretion of the trial Court for entertaining the application for receiving the rejoinder

11. on perusal of the decisions relied upon by both the parties and the decision of the Division bench of this court which has a binding force on this court and on perusal of the relevant paragraphs at Para No13, 15, 16, 17 and 18: L2. In paragraph 23 (b) of written statement in COS.No.24 of 2O2l and in paragraph 2ap) of counter allidavit in I.A.No. L62 of 2O2l t}re respondent/defendant contended that as pedtioner supplied defective products, MAA Yarn and Fibres deducted { 22,80,368/-. It is also asserted that on the request of petitioner payment of { 10,00,000/- was made to PNP Polytex private Limited. It is also asserted that material was supplied with delay and therefore, plaintiff should pay the penalty @ 2Oo/o on total cost. In paragraph 23(cl and (d) of written statement and paragraph 24(c) and (d) of the counter in I.A.No.L62 of 2021 tJle respondent asserted that defendant is entitled to receive penalty @ 2Oo/o due to delay in suppty of the material. In paragraph (d) defendantgavecalcu1ationofamountsandrecordsthat< 4,23,288/- is due from plaintiff only. In other words, the ,, / -"- 11 respondent make a claim that plaintiff is only due < 4,23,288/- and not vice-versa. The petitioner asserts that these aspects were brought in for the frrst time and therefore, require rejoinder.

13. Filing of rejoinder is not a matter of course. Whenever plaintiff intends to file rejoinder to the written statement, he must seek leave of the Court under Order VIII Rute 9 of CPC. Wide discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or reject such a course. The primary objective of this provision is to curtail lengthy pleadings and to avoid unwarranted delays in commencement of trial. The rejoinder cannot be for mere denial of assertions made in the written statement or to introduce new pleadings setting of a counter assertions by the defendants and so on. Therefore, discretion is vested in the Court to assess whether a rejoinder is required and only on being satisfied the Court may permit the plaintiff to file rejoinder.

15. Learned counsel for plaintiff/petitioner has taken us through the written statement / counter-allidavit to point out that certain assertions made in the written statement in COS.No.24 of 2021 and in the counter in I.A.No.162 of 2O2I are not covered in the plaint and, therefore, require a rejoinder.

16. Learned single Judge of this Court considered this issue in Malgireddy Venkata Ramana v. Thippana Narsi Reddy (1) 2010 (3) ALT 630 = 2OlO (3) ALD 82. Paxagraphs-7 and 12 read as under: "7. In Gorantla Kondalarayudu v. Marvel Orgaics LL997 (2) LS 3221, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that additional pleadings under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC include the additional plaint. Para.4 of the judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: "4. Ordeq 8, Rule 9 of CPC should not be confused by reading together that it permits only additional written statement by way of pleadings. Because the expression used therein is that no pleading subsequent to written statement shall be frled meaning thereby both plaint and written statement. Pleadings shall mean plaint and written statement as per Order 6, rule 1 CPC. [n that context, the pleadings and additional pleadings in Order B, rule 9 include the additional plaint also which can be either called as rejoinder or the reply in its real consequences." L2. The primary object of subsequent pleading is to supply what has been omitted inadvertently or unintentionally et te deny or clarify the facts stated in the pleadings of the opposite party. In the rejoinder t2 r\ the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts, which have been incorporated in the written statement. Application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as both are contextually different."

17. we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by learned single Judge in Malgireddy Venkata Ramana (suprai. similar view is taken in Punuru Vrjaya Lakshmi vs punuru Venkata Redcly (cRP.No.3Ss4 of rbeay and in Hafiz Mufti Mohammed zahid Nasri Vs Mohammed Iqballuddin Ahmed and Others (CRP.Nos.2OT and 231 of 2O2Il.

18. On going through the averments in the re-joinder, we are satisfied that they are not contrary to t]:e plaint averments and are intended to explain the assertions of the defendant in the written statement and in the counter respectively and the plaintiff is entitled to file rejoinder. It is not intended to procrastinate the proceedings or to widen the scope of the suit or change the nature or character of the suit. The division bench of this court referring to the Judgment of the Single Judge in Malgireddy venkata Ramana vs. Thippana Narsi Reddt' and held that they are satisfied that they are not contrar5r to the plaint averments and are intended to explain the assertions of the defendant in the written statement and in the counter respectively and the plaintiff is entitled to file rejoinder. It is not intended to procrastinate the proceedings or to widen the scope of the suit or change t.Le nature or chanracter of the suit. Though the other aspect which is raised is that as to the order 8 Rule 9 and also as to Order 6 Rule 15A of CpC. 4 20to 3 ALT 630 / / 13

12. Applying the said principles laid down therein to the present set of facts, on perusal of the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff which are filed by the plaintiff by way of rejoinder reveal that the said rejoinder is in the form of denial. In respect of pleadings made by the defendant by way of written statement and as it is only in the form of explaining/clarifying the facts which are averred in the written statement, but to the opinion of this Court that there are no new facts have been brought in nor there is any additional facts which are being brought in which expands the scope of the suit and as such this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court having relied upon the judgment of the various decisions cited before the trial Court in Para7,8,9 of the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.856 of 2O2O in I.A.No.227 of 2O2O in O.S.No.S2 of 2O2O. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has relied on the following citations:- (i) Sri Gavi Matt Samsthanam, Uravakonda Vs Danda Narayana , swamy and others [1999 (6) ALT 800 (S.B) dt. 17-8-1999 of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. (ii) Shakoor Vs Jaipur Development Authority dt.08-08-1986 of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. (iii) Sunil, Vasanth Architects and Consulting Engineers Vs. TATA Ceramics Ltd. Dt. 12-1 1-1998 of Hon'ble High Court Kerala. (iv) Payala Gopi VsTiebeam Technologies lndia Pvt. Ltd. And others[2o'l5 (4) ALT 153 (S.B)] dt.6-3-2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. t4 i. ln Sri Gavi Matt Samsthanam, Uravakonda Vs Danda Narayana swamy and others [1999 (6) ALT 8OO (S.B)] the Hon,bte High Court held that "Citing a wrong provision of law is not a valid ground for refusing to grant relief which can be otheruise granted in law. lt further held that Order Vlll Rule 9 of CpC specifically provides for filing subsequent pleadings by any of the parties with the leave of the court". ln Shakoor vs Jaipur Development Authority the Hon'ble ii,. High Court of Rajastan held that the provisions under Order Vlll Rule I of CPC would extend to a petition for temporary injunction as well, by further stating that in order to do real justice between the parties and to find out the truth it is necessary to permit the plaintiff to explain the new pleas taken by defendant." iii. ln Sunil, Vasanth Architects and Consulting Engineers Vs. TATA Ceramics Ltd, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reiierated that "The Code of Civil Procedure far from pinning down the plaintiff to the plaint and the defendant to the written statement does contemplate further pleadings. lt is lawful for the plaintiff to file a replication to add to his pleas already made in the plaint and the only condition therein is leave of the Court. iv. ln Payala Gopi VsTlebeam Technologies lndia pvt. Ltd. And others the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Hyderabad held that "mere quoting a wrong provision by a counsel in an application is not ground for its rejection if it is permissible under any other provision of law. Substantive rights of parties cannot be defeated by making hyper-technical approach". The judgments relied upon by petitioner/plaintiff in 1 and 4 above are not applicable to the presenl case as .the petitioner/plaintiff has cited the correct provision of law. The iudgments in 2 and 3 above however, can be relied upon.

8. lt has been held in Keshav Naik Vs Sujir Ganesh [AlR 1992 SC 15261 that "Replication clarifying the facts in the written statement, with the leave of the court is permissible".

9. On perusal the respondenudefendant has not only denied the plea of the plaintiff but has also brought on record certain new facts. As such this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff should be given a chance to replicate the said facts, as has been held in Nannapaneni Sowbhagyamma and another Vs Nannapaneni Rama Rao and another [2015 (6) ALT 1S9]. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to file a rejoinder within 30 days from the date of this order.

13. On perusal of the said order passed by the learned trial Court, this Court holds tha) &:rere is no error committed by the // 15 trial Court in receiving the said rejoinder to t.Le couhter and to the written statement filed by the respondents/defendants. consequently, these civil Revision petitions filed by the petitioners/defendants deserves to be and accordingly dismissed, confirming the order's passed by the learned trial court in I.A.No.856 of 2o2o in I.A.No.22T of 2o2o in o.s.No.s2 of 2O2O. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closcd. SD/- A.PRATH PUTY N OFFICER \ //TRUE COPY// To, DL 1- The Junior civil Judge, chevella, Ranga Reddy District. 2. One CC to Sri Suhas, Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to Srik. tafshmi Manohar, Advocate tOpUCI

4. Two CD CopiesV HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED i1911112025 6,,. lI^i (('1' t. L ]', 16 EEC ztH * PrlCH --n ,i COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.184 & 206 of 2021 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIOITS 6 I I I ,,1