APHC010480002024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3527] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2613/2024 Between: Sai Sreenivasa Infra and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Velagapudi Rama Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D BALAKRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K KOUTILYA 2 HBKM,J& AHHS,J C.R.P.No.2613 of 2024 The Court made the following: ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Central Government counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.86 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.01 of 2020 on the file of Court of the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, dated 12.09.2024, dismissing the petition to receive the rejoinder filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the plaintiffs filed the commercial suit against the respondent/defendant for recovery of money. Subsequently, after filing the written statement, the amendment of plaint was also permitted by the Court on filing the appropriate application. The said amendment of plaint was permitted by the Court below pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.287 of 2022, dated 18.04.2023. Consequently, the respondent/defendant filed additional written statement for which the petitioners/plaintiffs intended to file rejoinder for the additional written statement of the defendant and the same was filed along with I.A.No.86 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.1 of 2020 under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 3 HBKM,J& AHHS,J C.R.P.No.2613 of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rejoinder was also prepared and submitted along with the said I.A for which the respondent/defendant also filed counter in the aforesaid I.A.No.86 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.1 of 2020 before the Court below adverting to the averments made in the rejoinder also. But the Court below without considering the averments in the rejoinder and the counter of the respondent/defendant in the aforesaid I.A.No.86 of 2024 in the above said commercial suit only dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that the petitioners/plaintiffs have not explained the details and particulars of those allegations in the said I.A. for which they sought for filing of the re-joinder. 5. On the other hand, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submits that the trial Court rightly dismissed the above said I.A to receive the rejoinder as they have not shown the sufficient cause for filing such rejoinder by making necessary averments in the above said I.A. But, it is not disputed that the rejoinder contains the detailed averments for the additional written statement made by the defendants in the above said suit. 6. Upon consideration of the above said facts and circumstances and the rival submissions made, it is clear that the trial Court did not consider the averments made in the rejoinder which was filed along with the above said I.A including the list of 4 HBKM,J& AHHS,J C.R.P.No.2613 of 2024 documents filed in support of the suit. Since the suit is at the stage of completion of pleadings and as the trial is not yet commenced, the trial Court ought to have considered the request of the plaintiffs for submission of the rejoinder so as to give finality for the pleadings between the parties. 7. At this stage, for submission of pleadings, the scope of the parties cannot be scuttled to file the same before proceeding with the suit in the interest of justice. The Court below is not right in considering the only averments made in the above said I.A without considering the main pleadings in the rejoinder that too when the respondent/defendant also adverted to the contents of the rejoinder which was already annexed to the above said I.A. 8. In view of these circumstances, this Court comes to a conclusion that the order of the trial Court passed in the above said I.A is not reasonable and not sustainable and accordingly, it is set aside and the petitioners’ rejoinder shall be taken on record in the suit for the purpose of proceeding with the suit. Accordingly, the I.A.No.86 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.1 of 2023 is allowed by setting aside the order of Court below, dated 12.09.2024. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 HBKM,J& AHHS,J C.R.P.No.2613 of 2024 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN _________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA 18.03.2025 SCS 6 HBKM,J& AHHS,J C.R.P.No.2613 of 2024 497 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2613/2024 DATE: 18.03.2025 SCS