IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6474 OF 2008 Sou.Snehal Shantaram Rajadhyaksha & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Smt.Anjani Ramchandra Ranganekar & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.M.Kamble for Petitioners. Mr.S.A.Bhagwat for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Bhagwat waives notice for Respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. : 2 : 4. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, On Deputation (2nd Additional Judge) dated 16th June 2008 below Exhibit 26 in Special Civil Suit No.1445 of 2006. By the said application, the Plaintiffs prayed for permission to file replication to the written statement and rejoinder to the reply filed by Defendant No.1 to oppose the temporary injunction application. The Court below has taken the view that replication could not be entertained as no counter claim was filed by the Defendant. That observation is unacceptable. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure do not limit filing of replication only in case of counter claim to be filed by the Defendant. The purpose of replication is to give opportunity to the Plaintiff to deny or explain the new circumstances or facts stated by the Defendant in the written statement. This aspect has been considered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Sunil & Vasanth Architects & Sunil & Vasanth Architects & Sunil & Vasanth Architects & Consulting Engineers & Anr. v. Tata Ceramics Ltd. Consulting Engineers & Anr. v. Tata Ceramics Ltd. Consulting Engineers & Anr. v. Tata Ceramics Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 Kerala 88 reported in AIR 1999 Kerala 88 reported in AIR 1999 Kerala 88. I am in agreement with the view so expressed by the Kerala High : 3 : Court. 5. In the present case, the Plaintiffs intend to file replication in the context of the case made out by the Defendant in the written statement asserting relinquishment of suit property in favour of Defendant No.1. This being a new fact stated by the Defendant in the written statement, could be explained or denied by the Plaintiff, which opportunity is available only by way of replication. The lower Court has glossed over these relevant aspects of the matter and proceeded to decide the application on incorrect basis. 6. Insofar as filing of rejoinder affidavit to counter the assertions made in the reply filed to oppose the temporary injunction application is concerned, once again, the Plaintiffs cannot be denied a fair opportunity to contest the claim of the Defendant in relation to matter stated for the first time in such reply affidavit. The lower Court has erroneously assumed that the Plaintiffs had filed the subject application so as to create : 4 : the obstruction in the fair trial of the Suit and if such liberty is granted, would result in multiplying pleadings. The reason recorded by the Trial Court does not commend to me. As a matter of fact, it is the basic requirement of fair trial to provide opportunity to both the parties to deal with the case made out in the pleading by them. That opportunity is offered to the Plaintiffs by way of replication in relation to new matters stated in the written statement. 7. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, this Writ Petition succeeds. The impugned Judgment and Order is set-aside. Instead, the Application filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs (Exhibit 26) is allowed. 8. It is ordered that the Plaintiffs shall file before the Trial Court replication to the written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 before the next date fixed by the Trial Court i.e. 22nd January 2009. The Plaintiffs will be free to file rejoinder to the reply affidavit filed by the Defendant No.1 to contest the temporary injunction : 5 : application which shall be also filed before 22nd January 2009. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall proceed with Exhibit 5 application as well as the Suit in accordance with law. 9. Parties to appear before the lower Court on 22nd January 2009. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.