Replication in civil pleadings is not automatic and cannot introduce inconsistent or fresh foundational pleas without leave.

A replication is not an automatic pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and is ordinarily permissible only with leave of court, where required by law, or to answer new defensive matter in the written statement. It may be confined to confession and avoidance or rebuttal of such new matter, but it cannot be used to deny the written statement as of course, introduce a plea inconsistent with the plaint, or supply a fresh foundational claim that should instead be raised by amendment. The court upheld the objection to the replication, refused leave, and directed that it be taken off the file.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaintiff is entitled, as of course, to file a replication to the written statement and whether such replication can introduce pleas inconsistent with the plaint or supply a new foundation of claim.

Analysis: Under the Code of Civil Procedure, pleadings consist of the plaint and written statement. A defendant must specifically traverse the plaint and may raise new facts in the written statement, but a plaintiff is not required to file a replication merely to deny those averments. In the absence of a counterclaim, set-off, a legal requirement, or leave of the court, a replication is not ordinarily contemplated. Where the court permits a replication, it must be confined to the new matter raised in the written statement and may be used only for confession and avoidance or for answering the defensive plea. A subsequent pleading cannot be used as a substitute for amendment of the plaint, and no plea inconsistent with the original pleading can be introduced for the first time through replication.

Conclusion: The objection to the replication was upheld, leave to file the replication was refused, and the replication was directed to be taken off the file.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff has no automatic right to file a replication to a written statement; such a pleading is permissible only with leave, when required by law, or in answer to new defensive matter, and it cannot introduce an inconsistent or fresh foundational plea that ought to be brought in only by amendment.

---