Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by the defendant (Sri H.G. Shekar) challenging an order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30) in O.S. No. 2945/2018. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff (Sri Shome H.G.) to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement. The petitioner/defendant contended that the Trial Court erred in allowing the rejoinder, arguing that Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not permit filing of a rejoinder after the written statement has been amended. The respondent/plaintiff supported the impugned order, submitting that the amended written statement introduced new facts requiring a rejoinder. The High Court examined the limited issue of whether the Trial Court's order was sustainable. The Court noted that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC allows a party to file a rejoinder if new facts are pleaded in the written statement. Since the written statement was amended, new facts could have been introduced, and the Trial Court's discretion to allow a rejoinder was not shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction. The High Court held that there was no error in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejoinder to Amended Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 9 CPC - The Trial Court allowed the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement, which was challenged by the defendant. The High Court held that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC does not prohibit filing of a rejoinder when new facts are pleaded in the amended written statement. The Court found no perversity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Scope of Interference - The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can interfere only if the order is perverse, without jurisdiction, or suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order allowing rejoinder was found to be within the Trial Court's discretion and not warranting interference. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the respondent/plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Trial Court's order dated 22.09.2025 allowing the respondent/plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 9 CPC permits filing of rejoinder to amended written statement if new facts are pleaded
- Order VIII Rule 9 CPC is not a bar to filing rejoinder after amendment of pleadings
- Trial court's discretion to allow rejoinder should not be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless perverse or without jurisdiction
