What are basic principles the court should follow while deciding an application seeking permission to file replication or rejoinder?

The principles deducible from the above discussions may be summarised thus -

a) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint.

b) In rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts which have been incorporated in the written statement.

c) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in his rejoinder.

d) The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action.

e) Application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC as both are contextually different. {Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Civil Revn. No. 1151 of 1997

Decided On: 04.03.1998

State of Rajasthan and Ors.  Vs. Mohammed Ikbal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

Citation: MANU/RH/0223/1999

Print Page

Under which circumstances the court can permit plaintiff to file a Replication?

 As stated supra, the petitioner has not raised any new plea and on the other hand, in order to controvert by giving proper reply qua the new facts stated in some of the paragraphs in the written statement by the first respondent, the petitioner sought leave to file replication. When the first respondent attempted to introduce new facts in the written statement, the petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to controvert the said averments incorporated in the writ statement. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision in the case of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal relied upon by the first respondent is not helpful to the case of the first respondent.

{Para 30}

31. Admittedly, the practice of filing replication/subsequent pleading is meant only for denying and/or clarifying the facts stated in the written statement. Fresh cause of action or fresh case is not brought up by filing replication. On a perusal of the replication filed by the petitioner, this Court finds that the averments set out in the replication are not contrary to the averments set out in the election petition and these are only explanatory to the plea advanced by the first respondent in the written statement. Therefore, in order to explain/clarify the plea of the first respondent and for fair trial of the election petition and also in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to grant leave to the petitioner to file replication.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL

MC (El. Pet.) No. 119 of 2022 and El. Pet. No. 6 of 2022

Decided On: 14.03.2023

Nahakpam Indrajit Singh Vs. Sheikh Noorul Hassan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.V. Muralidaran, Actg. C.J.

Citation: MANU/MN/0055/2023.

Print Page

Whether replication is part of pleading?

Qua concealment, I may say replication, being a part of the pleadings, the tenant has no right to allege the averments made by the respondent in the replication cannot be read. Admittedly there was an earlier litigation between the parties wherein an issue of ownership was never raised by the petitioner and if in such circumstances an eviction petition was filed without disclosing the details qua ownership, the respondent was fully justified in disclosing those in his replication on denial of his ownership by the petitioner herein in his written statement. The replication thus was an explanation to the denials/issues raised in written statement by the petitioner herein, and hence the petitioner cannot allege concealment on the part of the respondent. A bare perusal of the eviction petition show it contains all necessary ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. It was only when the petitioner raised issues in his leave to defend application, the respondent clarified all such facts in his rejoinder/replication.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RC. Rev. 105/2016, CM Appl Nos. 44082/2016 and 27383/2017

Decided On: 28.01.2019

Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ravinder Kumar Suri

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Yogesh Khanna, J.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR(Rent) 303 Delhi

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for a party to amend his pleading if opposite party amends its pleading?

 In Pleadings : Principles and Practice by Jacob & Goldrein (1990 Edition) it is stated that a party served with a pleading which is subsequently amended may not amend his own pleading and may rely on the rule of implied joinder of issue but "if he does amend his own pleading, he is not entitled to introduce any amendment that he chooses. He can only make such amendments as are consequential upon the amendments made by the opposite party" (at page 193). "In all cases except where amendment is allowed without leave, the party seeking or requiring the amendment of any pleading must apply to the Court for leave or order to amend. The proposed amendment should be specified either by stating them, if short, in the body of the summons, notice or other application or by referring to them therein. In practice leave to amend is given only when and to the extent that the proposed amendments have been properly and exactly formulated, and in such case, the order giving leave to amend bloods the party making the amendment and he amend generally." (at pages 206-207).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (civil) 2896 of 2001

Decided On: 04.02.2002

Gurdial Singh  Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Lahoti and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.

Print Page

Whether plaintiff can be permitted to file replication or rejoinder to written statement?

To conclude

39. Even going by the meaning of the said term given in the Black's Law Dictionary, it only defines the practice as in vogue in Courts. Going on logically or by etymology, the term 'replication' carries means repeatation or reiteration (of what was once told). This meaning is almost contrary to the practice believed to be followed in the Courts in this regard. The meaning attributed to the said term in law is solely due to the said practice alone. Therefore, what would replication mean and what is the purpose it serves has no co-relation with the cannons of justice through adversial systems as channelized by C.P.C.

40. This Court cannot be oblivious to the changes in procedural law which have undergone in recent past. Effect of amendment in the Civil Procedure Code aimed at expeditious disposal and focusing on avoiding delays has to be considered, and the scope of Rule 9 of Order VIII is not to be escalated.

41. In the result, this Court is of the considered view that Rule 9 of Order VIII can never be used as an aid to the plaintiff to file a replication or a rejoinder to the written statement.

42. Moreover, the concept of replication has no statutory support in India. Any such practice is not based on any law or practice or a tradition having force of law which is saved by law or constitution.

43. Owing to the foregoing discussion, this Court is of a considered view that by any permutations and combinations, Rule 9 of Order VIII cannot be used to give leverage to a plaintiff who wants to escalate the pleadings by bringing on record the facts which he is not permitted to bring, save and except by taking recourse to Rule 17 of Order VI of C.P.C. by way of amendment of plaint.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 524 of 2009

Decided On: 23.09.2009

Shri Datta Laxmikant Nayak Karmali Vs.  Mrs. Priya Daata Nayak Karmali, nee Ms. Priya Narshiv Pissurlekar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.H. Joshi, J.

Print Page

Whether court accepting replication is interlocutory order?

In view of the above, replication or additional written statement are both part of the pleadings included within the plaint and the written statement.

Accordingly, by accepting replication no new pleadings are being accepted but only the plaint is being supplemented in view of the new facts stated in written statement.

It is not the case that the replica is not necessary.

The order accepting the replica on record is an interlocutory order and it does not in any way decide any rights of the parties which may result in miscarriage of justice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3436 of 2013

Decided On: 23.01.2013

 Smt. Kiran Chaudhary and Another Vs. Jay Prakash Chaudhary

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal, J.

Citation: 2013 (4) ADJ 199:2013(3) AWC 3121

Print Page

Whether it is permissible for plaintiff to file replication?

 Pleadings generally refer to a statement of the case/claim which is a plaint and the statement of defence of the other side which is called written statement. However, the Court at times may require the parties to file further statements to supplement their plaint case or written statement. Such subsequent statements are normally referable to replication/rejoinder, in case of the plaintiff and additional written statement in case of the defendant.

Sometimes, additional written statement is necessary on the amendment of the plaint. Similarly, on the amendment of the written statement, the plaintiff may file additional statement which is again called replication. A replication by the plaintiff is also necessary when new facts are stated in the written statement which require to be replied by the plaintiff.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3436 of 2013

Decided On: 23.01.2013

 Smt. Kiran Chaudhary and Another Vs. Jay Prakash Chaudhary

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal, J.

Citation: 2013 (4) ADJ 199:2013(3) AWC 3121

Print Page

Basic concept of 'Replication' and 'rejoinder'

'Replication' and 'rejoinder' have well defined meanings. Replication is a pleading by plaintiff in answer to defendant's plea. 'Rejoinder' is a second pleading by defendant in answer to plaintiff's reply i.e. replication. (2) To reach the avowed goal of expeditious disposal, all interlocutory applications are supposed to be disposed of soon on their filing. A delivery of copy or the I.A. to the counsel for opposite party is a notice of application. Reply, if any, may be filed in between, if the time gap was reasonable enough enabling reply being filed . (3) I.As. which do not involve adjudication of substantive rights of parties and/or which do not require investigation or inquiry into facts are not supposed to be contested by filing written reply and certainly not by filing replication. (4) A replication to written statement is not to be filed nor permitted to be filed ordinarily, much less in routine. A replication is permissible in three situations. (i) when required by law; (ii) when a counter claim is raised or set off is pleaded by defendant (iii) when the court directs or permits a replication being filed. (5) Court would direct or permit replication being filed when having scrutinised plaint and written statement the need of plaintiff joining specific pleading to a case specifically and newly raised in written statement is felt. Such a need arises for the plaintiff introducing a plea by way of 'confession and avoidance.' (6) A plaintiff seeking leave of the court has to present before it the proposed replication. On applying its mind the court may grant or refuse the leave. (7) A mere denial of defendant's case by plaintiff needs no replication. The plaintiff can rely on rule of implied or assumed traverse and joinder of issue. (8) Subsequent pleadings are not substitute for amendment in original pleadings. (9) A plea inconsistent with the pleas taken in original pleadings cannot be permitted to be taken in subsequent pleadings. (10) A plea which is foundation of plaintiff's case or essentially a part of causes of action of plaintiff, in absence whereof the suit will be liable to be dismissed or the plaint liable to be rejected cannot be introduced for the first time by way of replication. 

Delhi High Court

Anant Construction (P) Ltd. vs Ram Niwas on 3 October, 1994 

 Equivalent citations: 1994 IVAD Delhi 185, 1994 (31) DRJ 205, 1995 RLR 20 (1) 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Lahoti, J.

Print Page