The recent legal case regarding the filing of a rejoinder has brought to light the crucial aspect of the court’s legal analysis in ensuring fair and expedited legal proceedings. The court’s meticulous examination of the procedural rules and adherence to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court play a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity of the legal system. Let’s delve deeper into the intricate details of this case and understand the significance of the court’s legal analysis in upholding justice.
Facts
- The plaintiff-appellant filed O.S. No 898 of 2001 seeking cancellation of a sale deed in relation to a parcel of land.
- The suits were dismissed for non-prosecution in 2008 and later restored in 2011.
- Various applications were filed by the appellant for amendments and additional documents.
- Contesting respondents challenged orders through revision petitions in the High Court.
- The Trial Court directed to decide the suits within 6 months on multiple occasions.
- The appellant filed suits for similar reliefs in respect of other parcels of land.
- Multiple applications were filed by the appellant seeking leave to file rejoinder and additional pleadings.
- The Trial Court rejected the application for rejoinder due to the proposed rejoinder not being filed.
- The plaintiff filed an original suit in 2001 against the sole defendant.
- Additional defendants were impleaded later, including the contesting respondents in this appeal.
- The contesting respondents filed a detailed written statement after being impleaded.
- The plaintiff sought permission from the court to file a rejoinder under Order-VIII, Rule-9 of the CPC.
- An application for rejoinder under Order-VIII, Rule-9 CPC was initially dismissed by the trial court on 29.11.2021.
- The plaintiff then filed a review application under Order-47, Rule-1 CPC to review the dismissal.
- The review applications were allowed, and the original orders were set aside, allowing the plaintiff to file a rejoinder.
- The High Court disapproved the order passed by the Trial Court on 14.03.2022 regarding these proceedings.
Also Read: Legal Authority and Res Judicata in Representation Matter
Arguments
- The Trial Court allowed the review petition due to the filing of the rejoinder after arguments on the applications, a practice disapproved by the High Court.
- The Trial Court’s order did not specify the factual aspects for which further pleadings were sought.
- The Court carefully examined the material and relevant dates presented by both parties and found shortcomings in the orders of both Trial Court and High Court.
- The absence of filing a rejoinder along with the petition raises concerns about the possibility of introducing new facts in the rejoinder.
- The respondents’ counsel argued against allowing the plaintiff to introduce new facts in a rejoinder as it deprives the defendant of the opportunity to respond.
- The plaintiff-appellant attempted to seek an order for taking a rejoinder on record without disclosing its contents at the time of consideration of applications on 26.11.2021
- The Trial Court initially dismissed the application to file a rejoinder under a mistaken impression that the proposed rejoinder had not been filed, but later realized its error and reviewed the order to allow the rejoinder on 29.12.2021
- The High Court was criticized for interfering with the Trial Court’s order, which was well within its inherent power to recall and rectify mistakes that prejudice a party
- The appellant’s attempts to introduce new facts through a lengthy rejoinder and filing multiple additional documents were seen as attempts to protract the litigation to the prejudice of the contesting respondents
- The order impugned was found to suffer from jurisdictional errors and infirmities based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases
Also Read: Court’s Legal Analysis on Filing Counter-Claim
Analysis
- The newly added defendants had filed written statements on 27.09.2021.
- The delay in the progression of the suit should not take away the substance of the matter regarding the prayer for filing a rejoinder.
- The trial is required to be assigned specific priority as per previous court orders.
- The suits have been clubbed together and evidence is being recorded in one of them.
- The Trial Court did not consider the fundamental aspects of the pleadings while deciding on allowing a rejoinder.
- Review is limited to correcting patent errors and not for rehearing and correcting erroneous decisions.
- The Trial Court committed a grave error in allowing the review petitions by substituting the earlier order with the impugned order.
- The appeal calls for orders conducive to expeditious proceedings rather than protraction due to procedural aspects.
- Balance of the rules of procedure must be maintained to avoid prejudice to any party.
- The orders impugned are to be modified to allow the rejoinder to remain on record.
- Contesting defendants are allowed to place further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder if necessary.
Also Read: Analysis of Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence
Decision
- The impugned order dated 14.03.2022 is set aside.
- Defendant Nos. 4 to 11 permitted to file sur-rejoinder with new facts based on plaintiff’s rejoinder.
- Trial of the suit to proceed expeditiously with specific priority and to be concluded preferably before 31.03.2023.
- No further issues to be framed, all aspects relating to pleadings to be examined at the time of final disposal of the suit.
- Review petitions filed by the appellant were allowed by the Trial Court on 29.12.2021.
- Trial Court framed additional issues on 31.01.2022 and posted the matter for trial.
- Sur-rejoinder to be confined to newly pleaded facts by the plaintiff in the rejoinder.
- Appeal allowed and petitions dismissed.
- Appellant filed a petition seeking leave to appeal, which was granted with a stay on the impugned order.
Case Title: M/S PRIME PROPERTIES Vs. SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED) THROUGH HER LRS (2022 INSC 1041)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007181-007181 / 2022
