Anurag Sharma v. Madan Lal Yadav
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 8 r. 9
Judgment
Nagar Extension, Behind Shri Hanuman Ji Mandir And Muskan Thaba, 200 Feet Byepass, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj.
Hanuman Sahai Yadav S/o Late Kalyan Sahay Yadav, R/o Tagore Nagar Extension, Behind Shri Hanuman Ji Mandir And Muskan Thaba, 200 Feet Byepass, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 11/03/2025 Order This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') against the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-IInd in civil suit No.364/2023, whereby the said Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit as well as Temporary Injunction Application against against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which defendants in their written statement had pleaded the new [2025:RJ-JP:11320] (2 of 2) [CW-15917/2024] facts so it was necessary for the plaintiff to file rejoinder, but trial court vide its order dated 31.08.2024 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that plaintiff wanted to rebut only new facts mentioned by the defendants. So, the order of the trial court be set aside. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that plaintiff wanted to rebut the new facts mentioned by the defendants in their written statement. So, trial court had committed error in dismissing the application under Order 8 Rule 9 filed by the plaintiff. So, order dated
31.08.2024 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside. The trial court is directed to take rejoinder filed by the plaintiff on record. AVINASH GULERIA /93 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.