IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 25427 of 2007(B) -------------------------- OS.66/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. FAIZAL EROTH, S/O. MOOSA HAJI, CHINTHAVALAPPU FLAT, KASABHA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. ABDUL ROUF, S/O. KHAJI, NAGARAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VENKALATH RAVINDRAN, S/O. DR.BALAN, VENKALATH HOUSE, KASABA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. VENKALATH PRABHAKARAN, S/O.DR.BALAN, VENKALATH HOUSE, KASABA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)25427/2007 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COURT BELOW. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.7.2007 IN I.A.No. 1014/2007 IN I.A.539/2007 in O.S.66/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOZHIKODE. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================= W.P.(C) NO.25427 OF 2007 ========================= Dated this the 29th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the subordinate judge, Kozhikode whereby the learned subordinate judge refused to permit the plaintiff to file a replication in an injunction application. The learned subordinate judge held that such a procedure is not prescribed and according to him, the law does not contemplate the filing of a replication to the application seeking order of temporary injunction. The principles of filing rejoinder and replication have to be borne in mind on the following grounds: When a plaintiff institutes a suit and the defendants file a written statement, a situation may arise that some of the averments in the written statement has to be properly explained by the plaintiffs in the case. In such a circumstance, an additional pleading is necessary and that is why the plaintiff is permitted to file a replication and when a situation arises where the replication filed by the plaintiff requires explanation or clarification, the defendant is permitted to file a rejoinder. There is no specific provision in the Code regarding the filing of a replication or a rejoinder. But it all depends upon each case whether further W.P.(C)25427/2007 2 explanation is necessary which according to the party has to be supplied and it is then the court permits the party to file a replication or rejoinder, as the case may be. This Court has held so, in a suit that replication and rejoinder can be filed and that is reported in Sunil & Vasanth v Tata Ceramics Ltd. (1999(1) KLT 61). This court followed the earlier decision reported in Kochukesavan Nair v Gouri Amma (1967 KLT 257). When such is the position of law, one cannot say that in an interlocutory application such an explanatory statement cannot be filed. Therefore I am not in agreement with the learned subordinate judge that no replication at all can be filed in an injunction application. Therefore the said order under challenge is set aside and the plaintiff is permitted to file a replication. I am informed that the suit itself is ripen for trial and there is already an interim injunction in favour of the writ petitioner herein. Let it continue and the suit be tried and disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, within a time frame of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)25427/2007 3