Summary
In 2001 suits to cancel sale deeds of land at Kukatpally, the plaintiff sought leave under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to file a rejoinder to the new defendants' written statements. The trial court refused because the rejoinder was not before it, then on review took it on record once it found the rejoinder had been filed. The Telangana High Court set that aside as beyond the limits of review. The Supreme Court found shortcomings in both courts' orders, since neither examined which pleadings actually called for a reply. Given its directions for a priority trial, and that additional issues had already been framed, it let the rejoinder stand. The defendants could file a sur-rejoinder confined to any new facts in it, no further issues were to be framed, and pleading questions were left for the final decision.
Issues
- Whether the trial court could, on review, take on record a rejoinder that had been filed before its order refusing leave but not placed before it.
- How subsequent pleadings should be handled in long-pending suits that this Court had directed to be tried with priority.
Provisions considered
- Order VIII Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Leave for subsequent pleadings requires the court to consider what the defendants pleaded and what calls for a reply. Neither the trial court nor the High Court had addressed that core question. (¶¶ 9, 11)
- Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court held that the trial court had exceeded its review power by substituting a new order. The Supreme Court did not decide the review question and instead moulded the relief so that the suits could progress. (¶¶ 3.12, 8, 11.1, 12)
- Article 227, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court interfered under its supervisory jurisdiction. This Court set that order aside but modified the trial court's order to balance expedition against prejudice to either side. (¶¶ 6, 12)
Held
- Neither the trial court's orders nor the High Court's order examined what the defendants had pleaded and which pleadings called for a rejoinder, so all of them had shortcomings. Delay partly attributable to the plaintiff did not by itself answer whether leave should be granted. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Because this Court had directed priority and early conclusion of the trial, and additional issues had already been framed, the orders had to favour progress over procedural protraction while avoiding prejudice to either party. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The plaintiff's rejoinder was to remain on record, and defendants 4 to 11 could file a sur-rejoinder limited strictly to any new facts pleaded in it. No further issues were to be framed. (¶¶ 11.1, 12, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal disposed of. The High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court's order of 29.12.2021 was restored with modification: defendants 4 to 11 could file a sur-rejoinder confined to new facts in the rejoinder. No further issues were to be framed, and the trial was to be concluded preferably before 31.03.2023.