1994 (10) TMI 313 - HC - Indian Laws

Delhi High Court Limits Replications/Rejoinders: Legal Procedures Emphasized

Anant Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Ram Niwas

The court held that the practice of filing replications/rejoinders in the Delhi High Court, not supported by procedural rules, disrupts court proceedings. ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality and necessity of filing replications/rejoinders.2. Impact of filing replications/rejoinders on court proceedings.3. Conditions under which replications/rejoinders are permissible.4. Legal definitions and distinctions between replication and rejoinder.5. Judicial precedents and practice directions regarding replications/rejoinders.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Necessity of Filing Replications/Rejoinders:The judgment discusses the prevalent practice of filing replications/rejoinders in the Delhi High Court, which has no foundation in the rules of procedure or the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court notes that this practice has outlived its utility and obstructs the smooth flow of justice. The judgment emphasizes that pleadings subsequent to the written statement, such as replications, are not statutorily contemplated by the CPC, except by leave of the court (Order 8 Rule 9 CPC).2. Impact of Filing Replications/Rejoinders on Court Proceedings:The court highlights that the practice of filing replications/rejoinders leads to unnecessary adjournments and delays in the trial process. Replications often merely restate denials of averments made in the written statements, adding to the bulk of the file and increasing the judge's workload. Moreover, unscrupulous plaintiffs may exploit this opportunity to introduce inconsistent cases, causing confusion and embarrassment at the trial.3. Conditions Under Which Replications/Rejoinders Are Permissible:A replication is permissible only in three situations:- When required by law.- When a counterclaim is raised by the defendant.- When the court directs or permits a replication being filed.The court may direct the filing of a replication when it feels the necessity for the plaintiff to join specific pleadings to a newly raised case by the defendant in the written statement. The plaintiff must seek the court's leave by presenting the proposed replication along with an application.4. Legal Definitions and Distinctions Between Replication and Rejoinder:The judgment clarifies that 'replication' is a pleading by the plaintiff in answer to the defendant's plea, while 'rejoinder' is a second pleading by the defendant in answer to the plaintiff's replication. The court refers to various legal dictionaries and texts, including Black's Law Dictionary, Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, and Halsbury's Laws of England, to define these terms and explain their usage in legal proceedings.5. Judicial Precedents and Practice Directions Regarding Replications/Rejoinders:The court discusses several judicial precedents and practice directions related to replications/rejoinders:- The law does not require a plaintiff to file a replication merely denying the allegations made in the written statement (Veemsekhara v. Amirthavalliammal, Laxmansing v. Laxminarayan Deosthan, Bank of Behar Ltd v. Madhusudan Lal).- A plaintiff can claim relief based on pleas in the plaint and not on pleas in the replication (Amarjeet Singh vs Bhagwati Devi).- Replication, if allowed by the court, becomes a part of the pleadings (Moti Ram vs Baldev Krishan, Mateshwar Dayal vs Amar Singh, Jag Dutta v. Savitri Devi).- A plea inconsistent with the case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint cannot be raised in replication (M.S.M. Sharma vs. Sri Krishna Sinha).- Practice directions suggest that the court may call upon the plaintiff to file a written statement in reply for elucidating the pleas when necessary, especially in complicated cases.Conclusion:The court upholds the objection raised by the defendant regarding the replication filed by the plaintiff, directing it to be taken off the file and returned to the counsel for the plaintiff. The plaintiff is allowed time to move a fresh application seeking leave to file a replication confined to the plea introduced by way of amendment in the written statement. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the established legal framework and avoiding unnecessary delays in the judicial process.