IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.785/2008. Kalu Ram and ors. Vs. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chomu and anr. Date of Order:- 31/1/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Satish Bijarniya for the petitioners. **** Learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the order dated 3/11/2007 whereby the application moved by the non-petitioner under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC was allowed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permitting filing of rejoinder and otherwise, the provision so quoted in the application i.e. Order 8 Rule 9 CPC is not applicable to the present case. It has further been contended that filing of the rejoinder will change whole complexion of the case itself. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. I am not convinced with the fact that the rejoinder has changed the complexion of the case and in my view, the learned trial court has rightly accepted the application of the non-petitioner accepting the rejoinder to be taken on record. So far other objection raised by the petitioners is 2 SBCWP NO.785/2008. concerned, as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a rejoinder can be filed subject to leave of the court. Permission has been granted by the court to take the rejoinder on record. So far as second ground of the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be accepted because it is a substance of the application which is required to be seen not the provision. Even in this case provision has rightly been quoted. In view of above, I do not find any error in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil