Interim Order 2

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: ..1.. Suit 1064-2020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER
MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT-12
IN
S. C. SUIT NO.1064 OF 2020
Shri Anup S. Mahanthy ] .. Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Urmila S. Khadiya(heirs) & 5 others ] .. Defendants.
Appearances :-
Plaintiff in person present.
Adv. Rajaram Ghandade for defendants
CORAM : Her Honour Judge,
Nazera Sadique Shaikh
COURT ROOM NO.03
DATE : 27/09/2023.
ORDER
The plaintiff has preferred this application under Order-VIII
Rule-9 of CPC seeking permission to file rejoinder to the written
statement filed by the defendants.
2. As per the plaintiff, the defendants have filed three written
statements with new averments and documents. According to
defendant Nos. 1 to 4, they have obtained Patch Hutment/Hut
Occupier’s card in the year 1978, which is required to be dealt with in
the pleadings. It is also submitted that, the plaintiff may be permitted
to filed three rejoinders to three written statements filed by the
defendants.
-- 1 of 4 --
..2.. Suit 1064-2020
3. The defendant Nos.1, 2 to and 5 and 6 have resisted the
application by filing reply at Exh.13, 14 and 15. The sum and substance
of the reply is that the application is not tenable as Order-8, Rule-9 of
CPC provides for filing the written statement by the defendants. It is
also contended that after the written statement of the defendant is filed
the court has also framed issues and the matter is pending for evidence.
It is also contended that the plaintiff has not averred in the application
what he required to bring on record. Therefore, it is prayed that
application Exh.12 be rejected.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff
has submitted written arguments at Exh.16. Also perused the plaint
and written statements of the defendants.
5. The plaintiff in his written arguments submitted that the
defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have alleged to have obtained Patch Hutment
Card and that legal documents were provided to the Revenue
Authorities. As per the plaintiff, those documents are not filed with the
written statement. It is also contended by the plaintiff that though the
defendants claimed that the area is called as Nardas Nagar and they
have not annexed any document to prove it. The defendants claimed to
have received permission to construct W.C., however they have not filed
the photograph to show that the toilets were installed in the room of
defendants. The plaintiff therefore submits that the defendants should
produce the documents. It is contended that that, defencdant had filed
identical reply in the written statement which is inconsistent and their
written statements be rejected and plaintiff be allowed to file rejoinder
-- 2 of 4 --
..3.. Suit 1064-2020
to three separate written statements.
6. The Civil Procedure Code does not explicitly provide for
filing of “rejoinder” or “replication” as the term is not legally defined.
However, the court in exercise of its jurisdiction is empowered to grant
leave for filing of rejoinder to allow a party to furnish clarification
regarding additional facts/issues that may have been alleged by the
opposite party in the written statement. Filing of rejoinder is essential
to explain the issues in respect to the new submissions averred by the
other party.
7. In this case, the plaintiff has failed to putforth what
clarification or submission he requires to putforth by way of rejoinder.
Moreover, the plaintiff has sought rejection of written statements which
are already part of record and issues are also framed on the basis of the
written statements. Hence, I do not find any merit in the application.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order;
ORDER
1. Application/Exhibit-12 is rejected.
2. Application/Exhibit-12 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Order dictated & pronounced in open Court)
( Nazera S. Shaikh )
Judge, City Civil Court,
Dated : 27/09/2023 Gr. Mumbai C.R. No.03,
Dictated on : 27/09/2023
Typed on : 03/10/2023
Signed on : 03/10/2023
-- 3 of 4 --
..4.. Suit 1064-2020
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
03/10/2023
at about p.m.
(Dastagir Babalal Mulla)
Stenographer Grade-I (Gazetted)
Court Room No.03, Gr. Mumbai
Name of the Hon'ble Judge : Nazera S. Shaikh
Judge, City Civil Court &
Addl. Sessions Judge
Court Room No.03, Gr. Mumbai
Date of pronouncement of
Order
: 27/09/2023
Order signed by Hon'ble Judge
on
: 30/09/2023
Order uploaded on : 03/10/2023
-- 4 of 4 --