IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3022 OF 2011 Between: Ramineni Lalitha Kumari and another …Petitioners A n d Talasila Seshagiri Rao (died) Talasila Raja Malleswara Rao and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3022 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.06.2011 in I.A.No.617 of 2011 in O.S.No.48 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, wherein the said application filed the petitioners herein under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file rejoinder, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed the suit for recovery of possession of item No.1 of plaint schedule property from defendants 1 and 2 or alternatively for the relief for partition of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one such share to 2nd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff and D-3 are the daughters and D- 1 and D-2 are the sons of late Tataiah. Item No.1 of the suit property was given to the 1st plaintiff towards pasupu kumkuma at the time of her marriage. D-1 and D-2 were managing the said item No.1 on behalf of the 1st plaintiff and giving her net agricultural produce every year. After the death of the 1st plaintiffs’ husband, D-1 and D-2 have stopped paying the annual net produce. The 1st plaintiff, therefore, demanded D-1 and D-2 to hand over possession of item No.1 to her and D-1 and D-2 have been postponing the same. On 16.10.2007, the 1st plaintiff executed a registered gift deed in favour of her son, the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a registered notice dated 05.12.2007 to D-1 and D-2 for which they got issued a reply dated 18.12.2007 with false allegations. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of possession of item No.1 or in the alternative for partition of item No.2. 4. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit inter alia contending that the suit land is inam land and patta was granted in favour of D-1 and D-2. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.617 of 2011 under order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file rejoinder to the effect that even if the suit land is inam land, the revenue authorities recognized possession of the 1st plaintiff and got her name entered in the revenue records along with the names of D-1 and D-2 and their mother with a view to give the land as pasupukumkuma to the 1st plaintiff and the revenue authorities issued patta in the name of the 1st plaintiff, her mother and brothers for item No.2 of the plaint schedule. 5. The respondents filed counter inter alia contending that the petition is not maintainable and the provision under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC was omitted by the Amendment Act in the year 1999 and the present application is filed at a stage when the matter stood posted for arguments and further contending that the suit land is only inam land and government granted patta in favour of D-1 and D-2. By the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present civil revision petition. 6. Admittedly, the evidence of both sides was completed and the matter stood posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed the present application and also two other applications to re-open the evidence and re-call D.W.2 for cross-examination. Under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, no pleading subsequent to the written statement other than by way of defence to set off or counter-claim shall be presented, except by leave of the Court. The written statement was filed about three years back. The plaintiffs have not chosen to file any rejoinder at any earlier point of time during the said period. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the present application was not filed earlier. 7. The decisions in SRI GAVI MATT SAMSTHANAM, URAVAKONDA V. DANDA NARAYANA SWAMY AND OTHERS[1] and PUNURU VIJAYA LAKSHMI V. DR.PUNURU VENKATA REDDY[2] relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the present case for the reason that in the above case the rejoinder was sought to be filed immediately after filing of written statement and before the trial commenced, whereas in the present case, the petitioner sought to file rejoinder when the matter reached the stage of arguments. Order VIII Rule 9 CPC does not say that the subsequent pleading i.e., rejoinder can be filed at any time or at any stage of the proceedings like Order VI Rule 17 CPC which enables the Court to permit the amendment of the pleading at any stage of the proceedings. Order VIII Rule 7 CPC bars the filing of any further pleading subsequent to filing of the written statement except by way of defence to set off or counter-claim. Of course, in respect of other matters like the present one, leave of the Court is required. The grant or refusal of permission/leave by the Court is within the discretionary power of the Court. Of course, the discretionary power has to be necessarily exercised by the Court judiciously. When it is found that the Court has in proper exercise of the discretionary power refused to grant the leave for filing the rejoinder, the same does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order is, therefore, held not liable to be interfered with. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th October, 2011 Lrkm [1] 1999(6) ALT 800 [2] 2000(5) ALD 108