IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER Mahadev Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) Behror & Another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7398/2008) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: August 28, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Ms. Preeti Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1-5-2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Behror District Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file rejoinder to the written statement. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally one Shri Ram had filed a suit for cancellation of adoption deed dated 21-11-1977 before the learned Court. After the death of the original plaintiff, on the basis of a will, the petitioner was taken on record as his legal representative vide order dated 21-7-2007. The defendant respondent moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, which was allowed and subsequently new issues were framed in the suit. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to file the rejoinder to the written statement. However, vide order dated 1-5-2008, the said application has been dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Ms. Preeti Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that once the Civil Court had permitted the petitioner to step in, in the place of the original plaintiff, vide order dated 21-7- 2007, it could not deny the petitioner the right to file a rejoinder. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent, has contended that the case has been hanging fire for the last twenty-eight years. Therefore, the application moved by the petitioner was merely a ploy to prolong the case. Therefore, the learned judge was justified in dismissing the said application. 4. It is, indeed, trite to state that a person, who steps into the court for the first time, also has a right to be heard. Moreover, justice should not only be done, but should appear to be done. Since, the petitioner was not involved in the case till 21-7-2007, he has to be given a right to be heard. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in dismissing his application for filing rejoinder. 5. Therefore, this Court quashes and sets aside the impugned order dated 1-5-2008 and directs the learned Judge to take the rejoinder on record. However, considering the fact that the case has been pending for the last two and a half decades, the learned Judge is directed to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn