Sri M.Suvarna Raju

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the Seventh (7th) day of July, 2015.

Present: Ms. R.Sreelatha, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

I.A.No.811 of 2014 in O.S. No.102 of 2014

Between:

Smt. P.Rajeshwaramma W/o Chandramohan, aged about 52 years, Occu: Tailoring, R/o H.No.2-5-8, Vepurigery locality, Mahabubnagar town, Mandal and District. …Petitioner/plaintiff.

And

1. Y.Chandrasheker Gupta S/o Ramulu Gupta, aged 55 years, Occu: Business,

2. Y.Srinivasulu Gupta S/o Ramulu Gupta, aged 50 years, Occu: Business,

3. Y.Umarani W/o Chandrasheker Gupta, aged 43 years, Occu: Housewife,

4. Y.Manjula S/o Srinivasulu Gupta, aged 31 years, Occu: Housewife, All R/o H.No.3-8-50, Ravindranagar, Mahabubnagar.

5. P.Prabhakarachary S/o Saibaba Chary, aged 49 years, Occu: Realtor, R/o Nijalapur H/o Musapet Village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

6. Vadla Ramanand S/o Ramachandraiah, aged 60 years, Occu: Agril., R/o Kandenelly Village, Tandoor Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Shyamalamma W/o Hanmanthu, aged 66 years, Occu: Agril., R/o Nijalapur H/o Musapet Village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

(Respondents 5 to 7 are formal parties) …Respondents/Defendants ***

This I.A. came up for final hearing before me on 23-06-2015 in the presence of Sri Neeli Narsappa, Advocate for petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri A.Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for respondents/defendants 1 to 4 and respondents/defendants 5 to 7 are the formal parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made and delivered the following:

Dt: 07-07-20152 IA 811/14 in OS 102/14

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. to grant leave to the plaintiff to file rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2.

2. The averments of the petition are that the suit is filed against the defendants for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits pertaining to the suit schedule property and the defendants 1 and 2 have filed their written statement with wrong plea without any manner of right or authority over the property and therefore, it is essential to file rejoinder to bring to the notice of the court the actual facts. Hence, it is prayed to permit the petitioner to file rejoinder.

3.Counter is filed by the respondent No.1 which is adopted

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the effect that the written statement in this case is filed by the defendants basing on the written statement in

O.S.No.21 of 2010 and so, no new facts are pleaded and even in

O.S.No.21 of 2010 on the file of this court, the petitioner herein went

on changing the pleadings and again sought for withdrawal of that suit and in that suit, the possession of the respondent, is admitted. It is stated in counter that a perusal of the written statement in O.S.No.21 of 2010 goes to shows that no new facts are pleaded in the written statement of this case and that the contents of rejoinder are no way connected with the written statement and to fill lacunae, this petition is filed.

4.Heard and perused the record.

Dt: 07-07-20153 IA 811/14 in OS 102/14

No oral evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioners has relied upon the citation and submitted that the granting of the permission/leave to the plaintiff to file rejoinder can be allowed by this court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the perusal of the copies of the plaint and the written statement pertaining the O.S.No.21 of 2010 on the file of this court goes to shows that no new facts are pleaded in the written statement filed in this case and that no permission can be given to the plaintiff to file rejoinder.

6.Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. deals with the subsequent pleadings and no pleading subsequent to the written statement of the defendants 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. The rejoinder in this case is submitted along with the present petition. In the citation reported in 2010(3) ALT 630 between

M.Venkata Ramana Vs. T.Narsi Reddy relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is held that rejoinder can be filed to explain the additional facts incorporated in the written statement and by referring to a catena of citations, it was observed that the primary object of subsequent pleadings is to supply what has been omitted inadvertently or unintentionally or to deny or clarify the facts stated in the pleadings of the opposite party. In the rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts, which have been incorporated in the written statement.

7.It has to be seen in the present case whether the additional pleadings became imminent because of the plea taken by the

Dt: 07-07-20154 IA 811/14 in OS 102/14

defendants in the written statement. As seen from the plaint copy of

O.S.No.21 of 2010 submitted by the learned counsel for the contesting

respondents, the said suit was for perpetual injunction only and the defendant No.6 filed written statement therein. Only after the written statement is filed in the present suit for declaration, recovery of money and mesne profits by defendant Nos.1 and 2, according to plaintiff, there arose dire necessity to file rejoinder. What is going to be pleaded by the defendants in the written statement is not expected to be known to the plaintiff and to be addressed by him in advance in his plaint inspite of the fact that there was an earlier suit between the parties. Only after seeing the pleas raised in the written statement, the plaintiff herein intended to file the rejoinder pertaining to the pleadings in the written statement. No prejudice would be caused to the contesting respondents even if this petition is allowed and both parties would get an elaborate opportunity to address the contentions raised by each party. Furthermore, the case is only at the stage of service of summons on the other defendants. In these circumstances,

I do not find any impediment to grant permission to the plaintiff to permit him to file the rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed granting leave to plaintiff to file rejoinder to written statement of defendant No.1 and 2. No costs.

Dictated to Superintendent of Family Court, transcribed by her

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of July, 2015.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

TSMA020006942012

Presented on : 29-11-2012 Registered on : 29-11-2012 Decided on : 25-06-2015 Duration : 2 years, 6 months, 26 days

IN THE COURT OF

Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

Mahabubnagar

AT MAHABUBNAGAR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by

SC/133/2014

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Giremolla Balraju Goud Through Police Station Officer , Ro Mallareddypally village of Damaragidda Mandal

MAHABUBNAGAR MAHABOOBNAGAR

Giremolla Balraju Goud VERSUS : Jadala Hanumanthu Age: 0 Occupation : Mallreddypally village of Damaragidda Mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Addl. PP, Advocate for appearing for Jadala Hanumanthu Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under :

334355306r/w34 of INDIAN PENAL

CODE,

334355306r/w34 of INDIAN PENAL

CODE,

334355306r/w34 of INDIAN PENAL

CODE,

334355306r/w34 of INDIAN PENAL

CODE,

ORDER

case is transferred to VII Addl. District and Sessions Judges court, Mahabubnagar for disposal.

Sd/-

Date : 25-06-2015 Additional Senior Civil Judge

Mahabubnagar

TSMA020002842010

Presented on : 27-09-2010 Registered on : 27-09-2010 Decided on : 08-06-2015 Duration : 4 years, 8 months, 11 days

IN THE COURT OF

Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

Mahabubnagar AT MAHABUBNAGAR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR Presided Over by

OS/201/2010

Exhibit No.:

: N.Sowjanya Age: 0 Occupation : Address: 22 yrs, house hold ro Vemula village, Midjil mandal.

VERSUS : Kadumula Ranga Reddy Age: 0 Occupation : Address: 12-2107 Vidyanagar colony, Kalwakurthy.

2:Kudumula Saralamma Age: 40 Occupation :

3:A.Chennamma Age: 65 Occupation :

4:Gummala Amruthamma Age: 63 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : V.Venkat Reddy Advocate for : K.Pratapkumar appearing for Kadumula Ranga Reddy: Advocate K.Pratap Kumar, exparte, exparte appearing for 2, 3, 4 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 08-06-2015 )

Dismissed

Date : 08-06-2015 Additional Senior Civil Judge

Mahabubnagar

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

SC/505/2014

Smt. Gudem Alivelu Through Police Station Officer , Ro Konagantipally village of Hanwada Mandal

MAHABUBNAGAR MAHABOOBNAGAR

VERSUS

Wadde Raju Age: 0 Occupation : Ro Kodur village of Mahabubnagar Mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: App., Advocate for appearing for Wadde Raju Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOCKET ORDER

Case is transfered to JFCM mahabubnagar

Date : 01-07-2015

Sd/-

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR