Whether plaintiff can be permitted to file replication or rejoinder to written statement?
To conclude
39. Even going by the meaning of the said term given in the Black's Law Dictionary, it only defines the practice as in vogue in Courts. Going on logically or by etymology, the term 'replication' carries means repeatation or reiteration (of what was once told). This meaning is almost contrary to the practice believed to be followed in the Courts in this regard. The meaning attributed to the said term in law is solely due to the said practice alone. Therefore, what would replication mean and what is the purpose it serves has no co-relation with the cannons of justice through adversial systems as channelized by C.P.C.
40. This Court cannot be oblivious to the changes in procedural law which have undergone in recent past. Effect of amendment in the Civil Procedure Code aimed at expeditious disposal and focusing on avoiding delays has to be considered, and the scope of Rule 9 of Order VIII is not to be escalated.
41. In the result, this Court is of the considered view that Rule 9 of Order VIII can never be used as an aid to the plaintiff to file a replication or a rejoinder to the written statement.
42. Moreover, the concept of replication has no statutory support in India. Any such practice is not based on any law or practice or a tradition having force of law which is saved by law or constitution.
43. Owing to the foregoing discussion, this Court is of a considered view that by any permutations and combinations, Rule 9 of Order VIII cannot be used to give leverage to a plaintiff who wants to escalate the pleadings by bringing on record the facts which he is not permitted to bring, save and except by taking recourse to Rule 17 of Order VI of C.P.C. by way of amendment of plaint.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Writ Petition No. 524 of 2009
Decided On: 23.09.2009
Shri Datta Laxmikant Nayak Karmali Vs. Mrs. Priya Daata Nayak Karmali, nee Ms. Priya Narshiv Pissurlekar
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.H. Joshi, J.
