IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1596 of 2011 BETWEEN Boda Vithal. ... PETITIONER AND Boda Balamallu. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. HARIHARAN Counsel for the Respondent: L. PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Plaintiff in the suit, O.S.No.63 of 2009, in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the said Court dismissing his application in I.A.No.31 of 2011 to permit him to file a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendant in the suit. 2. Admittedly, the defendant in the suit filed his written statement on 17.11.2009 and the petitioner moved the application seeking to file a rejoinder thereto on 22.12.2009. For some reason the said application was not numbered till the year 2011 and there appears to be some amount of negligence and carelessness on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff in pursuing the same. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner/plaintiff was diligent enough in moving the said application without delay and the rejoinder sought to be filed by him was also placed on record along with the said application. 3. The suit is for partition between two brothers. The defendant, by way of his written statement dated 17.11.2009, relied upon a gift settlement deed dated 04.09.2008. The petitioner/plaintiff, by virtue of the rejoinder, sought to place reliance upon a Will said to have been executed on 13.11.2001. It is an admitted fact that the said Will has already been marked in evidence by the petitioner/plaintiff. 4. The trial Court dismissed the subject IA on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the petition after recording of the evidence on the plaintiff’s side and being of the opinion that he could not be permitted to file a rejoinder at that stage. However, as stated supra, there was no delay as such on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff in filing the application along with the rejoinder but the delay was in pursuing the same. As the rejoinder had already been filed along with the application, the settlement of issues thereafter and the adducing of evidence on the plaintiff’s side did not have a role to play in the matter. As the Will sought to be relied upon by the petitioner/plaintiff has already been marked in evidence, the rejoinder would only introduce the foundational pleading and it would be for the trial Court to consider the same at the time of adjudication of the suit. Viewed thus, the order of the trial Court disallowing the filing of the rejoinder cannot be countenanced and is accordingly set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to accept the petitioner/plaintiff’s rejoinder and dispose of the suit expeditiously. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 26, 2011 DSK