[2025:RJ-JP:11320] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15917/2024 Anurag Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Plot No. 43, Hem Marg, Pancholi Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Madan Lal Yadav S/o Late Kalyan Sahai Yadav, R/o Tagore Nagar Extension, Behind Shri Hanuman Ji Mandir And Muskan Thaba, 200 Feet Byepass, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj. 2. Hanuman Sahai Yadav S/o Late Kalyan Sahay Yadav, R/o Tagore Nagar Extension, Behind Shri Hanuman Ji Mandir And Muskan Thaba, 200 Feet Byepass, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 11/03/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') against the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-IInd in civil suit No.364/2023, whereby the said 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 as well as Temporary Injunction Application against against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which defendants in their written statement had pleaded the new [2025:RJ-JP:11320] (2 of 2) [CW-15917/2024] facts so it was necessary for the plaintiff to file rejoinder, but trial court vide its order dated 31.08.2024 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that plaintiff wanted to rebut only new facts mentioned by the defendants. So, the order of the trial court be set aside. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that plaintiff wanted to rebut the new facts mentioned by the defendants in their written statement. So, trial court had committed error in dismissing the application under Order 8 Rule 9 filed by the plaintiff. So, order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside. The trial court is directed to take rejoinder filed by the plaintiff on record. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /93