Birbal S/O Chandra Ram vs Surja Ram S/O Hanmana Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 7598 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14510/2021

Birbal S/o Chandra Ram, Resident Of Village Pratap Pura, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District - Sikar, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Surja Ram S/o Hanmana Ram, Resident Of Village Pratap
         Pura, Tehsil - Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
2.       Indori W/o Chandra Ram, Resident Of Village Pratap Pura,
         Tehsil - Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
3.       Patwari Halka Village - Khudi Badi, Tehsil - Laxmangarh,
         District Sikar, Rajasthan.
4.       Sub Registrar, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
5.       Tehsildar, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mahender Singh Yadav, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

14/12/2021

The present writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 16.08.2021,

whereby, rejoinder filed by the petitioner has not been taken on

record and the same has been allowed to be in D-part of the suit,

as rejoinder is said to have been filed without permission of the

Court.

Learned counsel submitted that after filing of the

written statement on 04.10.2017 by the defendant, the petitioner

on 06.04.2018 made a request to the Court below for taking his

rejoinder on record.

(2 of 3) [CW-14510/2021]

Learned counsel submitted that the rejoinder which was

filed by the petitioner had not only mentioned the important pleas

but certain new facts were also inserted in order to defend the

petitioner's case.

Learned counsel submitted that there was justified

reason of not filing the rejoinder within 90 days and as such, the

Court below was required to consider the importance of rejoinder.

Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has

wrongly recorded a finding that on perusal of rejoinder, there was

a reiteration of earlier pleadings.

Learned counsel further submitted that the discretion

granted to the Court below, to take on record the rejoinder within

90 days, has not been exercised in legal manner.

Learned counsel also places reliance on a judgment

passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam Vs.

Vikaram & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 Punjab and Haryana

14.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

gone through the rejoinder filed along-with the writ petition.

This Court finds that the petitioner had received the

copy of written statement on 01.12.2017 and later on, he filed

rejoinder on 06.04.2018.

This Court further finds that the Court below has rightly

recorded a finding that if there is reiteration of the earlier

pleadings, there would be no purpose of taking the rejoinder on

record beyond the period of 90 days of filing of such pleadings.

This Court finds that the suit has been filed in the year

2017 and till date, no issues have been framed and the Court

(3 of 3) [CW-14510/2021]

below after considering the stage of the suit, has also passed its

order.

This Court does not find any legal error in the order

passed by the Court below and accordingly, the present writ

petition stands dismissed.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

Himanshu Soni/4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)