THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.5721 of 2009 (Dated : 20-08-2010) Between: Mende Veerabhadram S/o Nagaiah R.C.Puram, BHEL Colony, Hyderabad …Petitioners A n d Mende Nagaiah S/o Veeraiah Nalgonda Town and District …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5721 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 9.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.220 of 2009 in O.S.No.230 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District whereby and whereunder, the leaned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order-8 Rul-9 read with Section 151 CPC to receive the rejoinder. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.230 of 2006. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule property. The defendant filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. He pleaded in the written statement that he has given two acres of land to his two daughters towards pasupu- kunkuma at the time of their marriages. The plaintiff so as to controvert the plea of gifting the property by the defendant to his daughters, sought to file rejoinder and accordingly moved I.A.No.220 of 209 under Order-8 Rule-9 read with Section 151 CP.C. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.220 of 2009 that rejoinder is necessitated in view of the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement with regard to gifting of two acres of land to his daughters towards pasupu-kunkuma at the time of their marriages. 3. The defendant filed counter resisting the petition. The principal ground urged by the defendant in the counter is that the plaintiff moved the application long after filing written statement in the suit. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground of laches, by order dated 09.11.2009. Hence this revision. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 30.11.2009. The petitioner has also been directed to take out notice to the respondent by registered post acknowledgment due. Accordingly, the petitioner took out notice and filed proof of service, vide U.S.R.No. 928 of 2010 dated 27.7.2010. Despite service of notice on the respondent, he failed to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that filing of rejoinder has become imminent in view of the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement with regard to his gifting of two acres of land to his daughters at the time of marriage. A further submission has been made that mere delay in filing the rejoinder cannot be a ground to reject the same. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mula Akberpally[1]. Much emphasis has been laid on para 7 of the judgment, relevant portion of which reads as hereunder:- “ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the additional counter statement as well as the original counter statement and the application for fixation of fair rent and other materials on record, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent orders of the Rent Control Authorities in exercise of its revisional power. A plain reading of the impugned order of the High Court would show that two grounds were given by the High Court to reject the application for acceptance of the additional counter statement filed by the appellant. The first ground was that the appellant had filed a belated application for acceptance of an additional counter statement when examination of Pw.1 was already over. So far as this ground is concerned, we do not find that delay is a ground for which the additional counter statement could not be allowed, as it is well settled that mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings or filing of additional counter statement. At the same time, delay is no ground for dismissal of an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure where no prejudice was caused to the party opposing such amendment or acceptance of additional counter statement which could easily be compensated by cost……………………………………………”. 7. The respondent/defendant has taken a plea that he had given two acres of land to his daughters at the time of marriage towards pasupu-kunkuma. The petitioner-plaintiff intends to traverse the said averment by way of filing rejoinder. Of course, the defendant filed written statement in the year 2006 and whereas the petitioner-plaintiff filed the application seeking permission to file rejoinder in the year 2009. The delay can be compensated by awarding costs. In that view of the matter, this revision is allowed setting aside the order dated 9.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.220 of 2009. Consequently, I.A.220 of 2009 stands allowed subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.2,000/- as costs within two weeks from today in the trial Court. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.20-08-2010 Note:- Issue C.C in one week (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5721 of 2009 (Dated : 20-08-2010) [1] 2009(TLS) 49262