- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51271 WP No. 35434 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 35434 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. H.G.SHEKAR SON OF LATE H.K.G.SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.38, ADJACENT TO ‘A’ BLOCK, 5TH CROSS, AECS LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SHOME.H.G. SON OF LATE H.K.G.SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.98/98, DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU-560 037. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2025 MADE ON IA.V FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO. 2945/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-30) PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-E TO THE WP, DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION AND ETC. Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51271 WP No. 35434 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 22.09.2025 in O.S.No.2945/2018 passed by the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30) (“hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement was allowed. In view of the limited nature of the issue involved, this Court does not deem it apposite to issue notice to the respondent. 2. By the Impugned Order the learned Trial Court after examining Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘C.P.C’) and after examining the law in this behalf has held that an additional pleading can be filed provided they do not take away admissions. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51271 WP No. 35434 of 2025 3. The only ground of challenge that is being raised by the petitioner is that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC are only available to the Court in the event of a counter claim or set off and not a Rejoinder/Replication. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. A plain reading of Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC shows that subsequent pleadings to the written statement can be filed, but with the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, in the following manner. "ORDER VIII [Written statement, set-off and counter-claim] XXX 9. Subsequent pleadings - No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same." [Emphasis Supplied] - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51271 WP No. 35434 of 2025 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Noorul Hassan Vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh and Others1 has clarified this provision and has held that no pleading subsequent to the written statement can be filed without the leave of the Court. It can however be filed where a new matter is introduced in the written statement in the following manner: “9. Before we deal with the aforesaid issue, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of CPC in relation to pleadings. Order 6 Rule 1 CPC declares that pleading shall mean a plaint and a written statement. Rule 9 of Order 8 specifically edicts that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counterclaim shall be presented except by the leave of the court. Though, however, the court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement. 10. In Anant Construction (P) Ltd. v. Ram Niwas, the High Court of Delhi, in an exhaustive judgment authored by R.C. Lahoti, J. as his Lordship then was, dealt with the terms "replication" and "rejoinder", as is commonly used for subsequent pleadings, as also as to when leave for filing subsequent pleading may be granted by the court. After referring to various legal texts including Corpus Juris Secundum, it was observed: (SCC OnLine Del paras 12-14) 1 (2024) 9 SCC 353 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51271 WP No. 35434 of 2025 "12. A more detailed rather exhaustive statement of law is to be found in Corpus Juris Secundum. It would be useful to extract and reproduce the following paragraphs: 'A reply or replication is purely a defensive pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in avoidance of new matters alleged in the plea or answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new matters. (Para 184) No reply or replication is necessary where the issues are completed by, and no new matter is set up, in the plea or answer. (Para 185 a.) At common law a replication is necessary where a plea introduces new matter and concludes with a verification; but under the codes, practice acts, or rules of civil procedure of a number of States a reply to new defensive matter is not necessary or is necessary only when ordered by the court. A reply to a counterclaim is generally necessary; but under some code provisions no reply or replication is required in any case. [Para 185 b.(1)] xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Under the common law system of pleading, plaintiff may, at his election, file a replication to a special plea setting up an affirmative defence. On the other hand, it is proper to reject a replication to pleas which merely traverse allegations of the declaration and set up no new matter. Where the plea concludes to the contrary, plaintiff cannot reply with any new matter but must either accept it by a similiter or demur. So a good special traverse can be answered only by joining issue thereon and not by filing a replication.' (Para 191) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51271 WP No. 35434 of 2025 13. Decided cases in India use the term "rejoinder" loosely for a reply or replication filed by the plaintiff in answer to the defendant's plea. Strictly speaking a reply filed by the plaintiff (when permissible) is a replication. A pleading filed by the defendant subsequent to replication is a rejoinder. 14. A replication is not to be permitted to be filed ordinarily, much less in routine. A replication is permissible only in three situations: (1) when required by law; (2) when a counterclaim is raised by the defendant; (3) when the court directs or permits a replication being filed. The court may direct filing of a replication when the court having scrutinized the plaint and the written statement feels the necessity of asking the plaintiff to join specific pleadings to a case specifically and newly raised by the defendant in the written statement. The plaintiff may also feel the necessity of joining additional pleading to put forth his positive case in reply to the defendant's case but he shall have to seek the leave of the court by presenting the proposed replication along with an application seeking leave to file the same. The court having applied its mind to the leave sought for, may grant or refuse the leave. Ordinarily the necessity of doing so would arise only for "confession and avoidance". [Emphasis Supplied] 5.1. It was further held in the Noorul Hassan case that prior to granting leave, the Court must consider the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51271 WP No. 35434 of 2025 averments made in the pleadings in the following manner: “29. However, such leave is not to be granted mechanically. The court before granting leave must consider the averments made in the plaint/election petition, the written statement and the replication. Upon consideration thereof, if the court feels that to ensure a fair and effective trial of the issues already raised, the plaintiff-election petitioner must get opportunity to explain/clarify the facts newly raised or pleaded in the written statement, it may grant leave upon such terms as it deems fit. Further, while considering grant of leave, the court must bear in mind that, (a) a replication is not needed to merely traverse facts pleaded in the written statement; (b) a replication is not a substitute for an amendment; and (c) a new cause of action or plea inconsistent with the plea taken in original petition/plaint is not to be permitted in the replication.” [Emphasis Supplied] 6. In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC seeking leave to file a replication/rejoinder to the amended written statement which was allowed by the Trial Court after hearing both parties it was held that the replication was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51271 WP No. 35434 of 2025 for the purpose of explaining and clarifying the facts in the amended written statement. In addition, learned Trial Court has further held that no admissions were being retracted from. 7. In view of the law as settled in this behalf, this Court does not find any ground to entertain this petition. The petition is unmerited and is accordingly dismissed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA