Rejoinder Allowed = The application seeking permission to file rejoinder was filed only after the evidence of the petitioner was closed. - Filing of rejoinder became necessary only on account of the amendment caused to the written statement. = A rejoinder has a very limited purpose to serve. Except that it incorporates the plea of denial or explanation, by itself, it cannot plead any new or fresh fact, unless permitted by the Court. The issues are to be framed on the basis of the pleadings, viz., the plaint and the written statement. The role that can be attributed to the rejoinder in the context of framing of issues or leading of evidence is minimal. It only places on record, the disagreement on the part of the plaintiff about the facts pleaded through the amendment. Granting of permission to the petitioner to file a rejoinder would only make his disagreement with the facts pleaded by the respondents 1 and 2 through the amendment of plaint, and nothing more. To be specific, it does not entail framing of any additional issue much less examination of witnesses or reopening of evidence. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. It is directed that the trial Court shall take on record the rejoinder, presented by the petitioner and it shall not either reopen the evidence or permit examination of any witness on that ground. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition shall also stand disposed of.

published in  http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydispfree.aspx?filename=9662
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY          

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2078 OF 2012    

18-02-2013

K. Vishnu

K. Janardhan and others

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri  D. Hanumanth Rao

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S No.63 of 2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,
Srikalahasthi, against the residents for the relief of partition and separate
possession of suit schedule properties.  It appears that written statement was
filed by some of the defendants and the others have adopted the same.  The
respondents 1 and 2 i.e. the defendants 1 and 2 filed an application under Order
- VI Rule - 17 CPC with a prayer to permit them to amend the written statement.
The application was ordered. Though time was granted to the petitioner to file
rejoinder, he did not avail that opportunity.  Thereafter, issues were framed
and the evidence on behalf of the petitioners was closed.  When the evidence of
D.W-1 was in progress, the petitioner filed I.A No.463 of 2012 with a prayer to
permit him to file rejoinder.  The application was opposed by the respondents 1
and 2. The trial Court dismissed the same through order, dated 10-04-2012.  It
was observed that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity and it is not
open for him to file rejoinder at this stage.

2.  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
contesting respondent.

3.  The trial Court did give an opportunity to the petitioner, after the written
statement, filed by the respondents, was amended.  For one reason or the other,
that was not availed.
The application seeking permission to file rejoinder was
filed only after the evidence of the petitioner was closed.  
Across the Bar, it
is stated that not being aware of the consequences thereof, the Junior to the
counsel for the petitioner in the trial Court, reported that they did not intend
to file any rejoinder.
By the time the application was taken up, evidence on
behalf of both the parties was closed, arguments were advanced and the matter
was reserved for judgment.

4.  Filing of rejoinder became necessary only on account of the amendment caused to the written statement.  
A rejoinder has a very limited purpose to serve.
Except that it incorporates the plea of denial or explanation, by itself, it
cannot plead any new or fresh fact, unless permitted by the Court. 
The issues
are to be framed on the basis of the pleadings, viz., the plaint and the written
statement.  
The role that can be attributed to the rejoinder in the context of
framing of issues or leading of evidence is minimal.  
It only places on record,
the disagreement on the part of the plaintiff about the facts pleaded through
the amendment.  
Granting of permission to the petitioner to file a rejoinder
would only make his disagreement with the facts pleaded by the respondents 1 and
2 through the amendment of plaint, and nothing more.  
To be specific, it does
not entail framing of any additional issue much less examination of witnesses or
reopening of evidence.

5.  Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.  It is directed that the
trial Court shall take on record the rejoinder, presented by the petitioner and
it shall not either reopen the evidence or permit examination of any witness on
that ground.  There shall be no order as to costs.  The miscellaneous petition
filed in this revision petition shall also stand disposed of.
____________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
February 18, 2013.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.