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
…
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
…