Petitioner granted limited rejoinder on new facts, denied on other grounds. Case proceeds with Admission/Denial of documents.

The court allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder to specific paragraphs of the respondent's written statement where new facts were introduced but rejected the request for a rejoinder on other grounds. The rejoinder was limited to addressing the new factual allegations raised by the respondent. The judgment ordered the case to proceed with the filing of Admission/Denial of documents based on the restricted scope of the permitted rejoinder.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file a rejoinder in response to the written statement filed by the respondent.
2. The criteria for granting leave to file a rejoinder under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).
3. The extent to which a plaintiff can introduce new pleas in a rejoinder.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the petitioner's right to file a rejoinder to the respondent's written statement. The respondent objected to the petitioner's right to file a rejoinder, which led to a detailed hearing on the matter. The court considered the seriousness of the objection raised by the respondent and allowed both parties to argue on merit.

Issue 2:
The central legal provision under consideration was Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C., which governs subsequent pleadings after the written statement of the defendant. The respondent argued that the provision does not allow the plaintiff to file a rejoinder in a routine manner. However, the petitioner contended that a rejoinder should be permitted if new facts are introduced by the defendant in the written statement.

Issue 3:
Various legal precedents were cited to determine the extent to which a plaintiff can introduce new pleas in a rejoinder. The court referred to cases such as Shakoor vs. Jaipur Development Authority, Veerasekhara Varamarayar vs. Amirthavalliammal, and others to establish that a plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce entirely new pleas or alter the original cause of action in a rejoinder. The court emphasized that a rejoinder should only address additional facts brought by the defendant in the written statement.

In the specific context of the case, the court examined the contents of the written statement and the petitioner's proposed rejoinder. The court allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder only to specific paragraphs of the written statement where new facts were introduced. The court rejected the petitioner's request for a rejoinder on other grounds, limiting the scope of the rejoinder to address the new factual allegations raised by the respondent.

The judgment concluded by ordering the case to be listed for the filing of Admission/Denial of documents on a specified date, based on the limited scope of the permitted rejoinder.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal principles applied by the court in resolving the issues raised in the case concerning the filing of a rejoinder in response to the written statement.

---