[2025:RJ-JP:1641] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13924/2015 Kailash meena S/o-Sh.Lal Ram Meena, Age-about 40 years, R/o- 1/235, Housing Board Colony-Tonk, (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Raja Ram S/o-Choti Lal, R/o-Village-Soran, Tehsil &District- Tonk. 2. Dhanna Lal S/o- Chotu Lal, R/o-Village-Soran, Tehsil & District-Tonk. 3. Gopal S/o-Chotu Lal, R/o-Village-Soran, Tehsil &District-Tonk. 4. Mool Chand S/o-Chotu Lal, R/o-Village-Soran, Tehsil & District-Tonk.(Deceased) 4/1 Bhagwan S/o-Mool Chand, 4/2 Ram Prasad S/o-Mool Chand, 4/3 Govindi W/o-Late._Mool Chand, All R/o-Village-Soran, Tehsil & District-Tonk. 4/4 Saroof W/o-Late. Chand Mal R/o-Village- Islampura, Post- Soran, District-Tonk 5. Ram Swaroop S/o-Chotu Lal, R/o-Village-Soran, Tehsil & District-Tonk. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Heeralal Prajapati Mr. Pallav Jhalani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 13 /01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Tonk in civil suit No. 32/2013 whereby [2025:RJ-JP:1641] (2 of 3) [CW-13924/2015] the trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which the defendants filed the written statement and averred new facts in the written statement. So, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC before the trial Court to file rejoinder but the trial Court vide order dated 10.03.2015 dismissed the same. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff. Defendants had pleaded new facts in the written statement, so it was necessary for the plaintiff to rebut the same by way of filing rejoinder. So, the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the trial Court qua application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC be set aside and the rejoinder be taken on record. Learned counsel for the defendants have opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Defendants had not pleaded any new facts in the written statement and had not filed the counter-suit. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the defendants had not pleaded any new fact in the written statement which needed the rejoinder. Rather the facts averred by the plaintiff and defendants [2025:RJ-JP:1641] (3 of 3) [CW-13924/2015] are required to be proved by the plaintiff and defendants from their own evidence. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the present civil writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/90