Telangana High Court
Kankanala Shyam Sunder vs Moluguri Venkateswarlu on 22 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4355 OF 2025
22.04.2026
Between:
Kankanala Shyam Sunder
..... Petitioner
And
Moluguri Venkateswarlu & others
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
This Revision is filed by Petitioner – Defendant No.1
in O.S. No. 147 of 2019, assailing the order dated 01.11.2025
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial
in I.A. No.162 of 2024, whereby the trial Court allowed the
petition filed by Respondent No.1 – Plaintiff under Order VIII
Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC‘), and permitted Plaintiff to
file a rejoinder/reply to the written statement filed by
Petitioner/Defendant No.1.
2. Respondent No.1 – Plaintiff instituted the suit
against Petitioner and other Defendants, seeking declaration
2
that he is a co-owner entitled to 1/4th share in Schedule A to C
properties as properties of the partnership concern M/s
Matrusri Infra; cancellation of certain sale documents and
agreements of sale-cum-GPAs executed by Defendant No.1 in
favour of third parties; and consequential injunction restraining
the Defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties.
3. The case of Petitioner – Defendant No.1 before the
trial Court, as set out in the written statement dated
20.11.2020, is that: he denied the material averments of the
plaint and contended inter alia that the suit schedule properties
are not partnership properties but individual properties; the suit
is bad for non-joinder of partnership firm M/s Matrusri Infra as
a party; and Plaintiff is estopped from claiming the reliefs
sought. He specifically pleaded, in paragraph No.49 of the
written statement, that Plaintiff did not obtain leave under
Order II Rule 2 CPC at the time of filing the suit reserving his
right to seek further reliefs, and Plaintiff did not choose to seek
the relief of dissolution of partnership concern of M/s Matrusri
Infra and for rendition of accounts, nor did he array the
partnership firm as a party to the suit.
3
4. The case of Respondent No.1 – Plaintiff before the
trial Court, as set out in the petition and accompanying affidavit
filed in I.A. No.162 of 2024, is that: Plaintiff filed the suit for
multiple reliefs in the light of transactions that accord between
him and Defendants 1 to 4 as partners of the firm M/s Matrusri
Infra. Defendant No.1 had filed a written statement disputing
his contentions, had raised several issues and had tried to
mislead the Court. The contentions of Defendant No.1 were
contrary to the understandings, agreements and various
documents and court cases between the parties as well as third
parties. The false allegations and averments of Defendant No.1
made in his written statement required to be answered and
elaborated, and facts put in proper perspective in the light of the
understanding between the parties and the documents that
arose during the course of the partnership ventures. Plaintiff
further averred that the reply being filed along with the
application would throw more light on the issues in controversy
and help the Court for effective adjudication, and that no
prejudice would be caused to the Respondent as trial had not
yet commenced.
4
5. Petitioner – Defendant No.1 filed counter opposing
the said petition. It is pertinent to note that counter
predominantly addressed objections that properly pertained to
the amendment of the plaint and the impleadment of parties
sought in the simultaneously filed I.A. No.161 of 2024 and I.A.
No.163 of 2024. The objections taken in the counter were: (a)
Plaintiff, along with Defendants 3 and 4, got issued dissolution
notice dated 30.08.2019 calling upon Defendant No.1 to render
accounts, and the relief of dissolution and rendition of accounts
was required to be sought within three years from the date of
dissolution under Article 5 of the Limitation Act, i.e. on or before
30.08.2022; (b) Plaintiff did not obtain leave under Order II Rule
2 CPC at the time of filing the suit reserving his right to seek
further reliefs; (c) Plaintiff did not array the partnership firm
M/s Matrusri Infra as a party to the suit and the suit is bad for
non-joinder of the partnership firm; (d) proposed rejoinder to the
written statement of Defendant No.1 sought to be received
contains alleged pleadings pertaining to the partnership concern
of M/s Matrusri Infra and also all the alleged pleadings sought
to be incorporated by way of amendment of the plaint, and is
therefore premature pending disposal of the impleadment
petition; and (e) the relief of dissolution of firm and rendition of
5
accounts was already barred by limitation under Article 5 of the
6. It is observed, on a perusal of the counter, that no
specific or focussed answer has been furnished to the petition
filed under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC
seeking permission to file rejoinder to the written statement.
The counter does not address, with any degree of particularity,
the contents of the proposed rejoinder, nor does it identify
which portions of the rejoinder are objectionable on their own
merit as a reply to the written statement. This is for the reason
that, as will be seen hereinafter, the proposed rejoinder itself
was not placed on record before the trial Court by the Plaintiff
along with the application, and the Defendant No.1 was
therefore not in a position to answer specific contents which he
had no means of seeing.
7. Respondents 6 to 9 and 11 to 13 filed adoption
memos adopting the counter of Respondent No.1.
8. The learned trial Court, by the impugned order
dated 01.11.2025, allowed I.A. No.162 of 2024 and permitted
Plaintiff to file the rejoinder/reply to the written statement of
Defendant No.1. The trial Court observed that on perusal of the
record, Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of his rights in
6
the partnership firm, for injunction and for cancellation of
documents in respect of the suit schedule properties and the
suit stood posted for hearing on issues. At that stage, Plaintiff
filed the present petition praying to permit him to file rejoinder
to the written statement. The reason shown for filing rejoinder
at that stage was that Defendant No.1 had filed a written
statement disputing his contentions, had raised several issues
and had tried to mislead the Court, and the contentions of
Defendant No.1 were contrary to the understandings,
agreements and various documents and court cases between
the parties as well as third parties. The trial Court concluded
that considering the above reason and the stage of the suit, for
the complete and effective disposal of the matter, it was just and
necessary to permit the Petitioner to file rejoinder, and
accordingly allowed the petition, taking the rejoinder filed by
Plaintiff on record.
9. Learned counsel for Petitioner Sri Kondadi Ajay
Kumar submitted that impugned order is patently illegal and
suffers from non-application of mind. He submitted that the
trial Court mechanically allowed the petition without
appreciating the grounds of objection taken in the counter. The
proposed rejoinder was not placed on record along with the
7
application, therefore, the trial Court was not in a position to
know the exact contents of the proposed rejoinder, or to assess
whether the filing of the rejoinder was in fact necessary. He
further contended that a rejoinder cannot be permitted as a
matter of routine; that it is only when the Court feels that the
plaintiff must get an opportunity to explain or clarify the facts
newly raised or pleaded in the written statement that leave may
be granted; and that in the absence of the proposed rejoinder
being presented before the trial Court, the exercise of discretion
by the trial Court is vitiated.
9.1. Learned counsel placed reliance on the following
decisions in support of his submissions:
(i) In Datta @ Dattatraya Dnyanu Methe v.
Sonabai Ganpati Methe (Writ Petition No.8291 of 2022,
decided on 21.02.2023), the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, after referring to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of
CPC, held that “filing of subsequent pleadings is not to be
resorted to in a routine manner and only in exceptional
circumstances, the Court may require either party to file
additional written statement. This is more so as the parties have
right to seek amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 if
any pleading is left out due to inadvertence. Therefore,
8
replications or rejoinders cannot be filed in a routine manner. It
is only when the Court arrives at a conclusion that it need
elucidation on any point that it may direct parties to file
subsequent pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code.” (para
10). The Court further held that “As observed above the plaintiff
did not present the proposed rejoinder along with her
application and in absence thereof, it was impossible for the
Court to know what exactly is sought to be pleaded in proposed
rejoinder. As held in Anant Construction (Supra), plaintiff
seeking leave of the court has to present before it the proposed
replication and on applying its mind, the court may grant or
refuse the leave. The Trial Court has thus erred in granting
leave to file rejoinder without the same being presented before
it.” (para 14).
(ii) In Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit
Singh 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “such leave is not
to be granted mechanically. The Court before granting leave
must consider the averments made in the plaint/election
petition, the written statement and the replication. Upon
consideration thereof, if the Court feels that to ensure a fair and
effective trial of the issues already raised, the plaintiff election
1
2024 INSC 391
9
petitioner must get opportunity to explain/clarify the facts
newly raised or pleaded in the written statement, it may grant
leave upon such terms as it deems fit. Further, while
considering grant of leave, the Court must bear in mind that.-(a)
a replication is not needed to merely traverse facts pleaded in
the written statement; (b) a replication is not a substitute for an
amendment; and (c) a new cause of action or plea inconsistent
with the plea taken in original petition/plaint is not to be
permitted in the replication.” (para 21).
(iii) In M/s. Sri Abhivridyasya Associates Pvt. Ltd. v.
Sahan Enterprises (CRP No.1907 of 2022, decided on
17.11.2022), a Division Bench of this Court held that “Filing of
rejoinder is not a matter of course. Whenever plaintiff intends to
file rejoinder to the written statement, he must seek leave of the
Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC. Wide discretion is vested
in the trial court to permit or reject such a course. The primary
objective of this provision is to curtail lengthy pleadings and to
avoid unwarranted delays in commencement of trial. The
rejoinder cannot be for mere denial of assertions made in the
written statement or to introduce new pleadings setting of a
counter assertions by the defendants and so on. Therefore,
discretion is vested in the Court to assess whether a rejoinder is
10
required and only on being satisfied the Court may permit the
plaintiff to file rejoinder.” (para 14).
10. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 –
Plaintiff Sri Srikanth Hariharan submitted that rejoinder is
necessary to answer the false allegations and misleading
contentions raised by Defendant No. 1 in his written statement,
that the trial had not yet commenced, and therefore, no
prejudice would be caused to the opposite party. He further
submitted that the rejoinder was in fact subsequently filed and
has been taken on record by the trial Court, and that the relief
of leave to file the rejoinder should not be disturbed by this
Court in revision.
11. Heard Sri S. Rama Mohana Rao, learned counsel for
Respondents 2 to 14.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides
and having carefully perused the material on record, including
the plaint, the written statement, the application filed seeking
permission to file a rejoinder, the counter filed by the
Petitioner/Defendant No.1, and the impugned order, the
following points arise for consideration:
11
(1) Whether the trial Court was justified in allowing the
petition seeking permission to file a rejoinder without the
proposed rejoinder being placed on record along with the
application?
(ii) Whether the impugned order suffers from non-application
of mind and warrants interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India?
13. The Code of Civil Procedure does not expressly
provide for the filing of a rejoinder. Order VI Rule 1 of CPC
defines pleading to mean a plaint and a written statement.
Order VIII Rule 9 CPC provides that no pleading subsequent to
the written statement of a defendant other than by way of
defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except
by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court
thinks fit. It is in exercise of Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section
151 of CPC that a party may seek leave to file a rejoinder or a
reply to the written statement.
14. The position of law on the permissibility of filing a
rejoinder has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam
Indrajit Singh 2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 21
2
2024 INSC 391
12
of the said judgment, specifically held that “such leave is not to
be granted mechanically. The Court before granting leave must
consider the averments made in the plaint/election petition, the
written statement and the replication.” The Supreme Court has
thus mandated that the Court, before granting leave, must
apply its mind to the contents of three documents i.e. the plaint,
the written statement, and the proposed replication/rejoinder
and only thereafter determine whether leave to file rejoinder
ought to be granted.
15. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Datta @ Dattatraya Dnyanu Methe v. Sonabai Ganpati
Methe (Writ Petition No.8291 of 2022) has, on all fours, dealt
with a situation where the plaintiff had filed an application
seeking permission to file rejoinder but had not tendered the
proposed rejoinder along with the application. The Bombay High
Court held, in paragraph 14, that “the plaintiff did not present
the proposed rejoinder along with her application and in
absence thereof, it was impossible for the Court to know what
exactly is sought to be pleaded in proposed rejoinder. The Trial
Court has thus erred in granting leave to file rejoinder without
the same being presented before it.” This principle has been re-
stated by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Sri
13
Abhivridyasya Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sahan Enterprises, which
held, in paragraph 14, that “discretion is vested in the Court to
assess whether a rejoinder is required and only on being
satisfied the Court may permit the plaintiff to file rejoinder.”
16. The legal position that emerges from the above
authorities may be summarised thus: (i) the filing of a rejoinder
is not a matter of course and cannot be resorted to in a routine
manner; (ii) the Plaintiff seeking leave of the Court has to
present before it the proposed rejoinder along with the
application; (iii) the Court, on applying its mind to the plaint,
the written statement and the proposed rejoinder. may grant or
refuse the leave; (iv) a rejoinder cannot be for mere denial of
assertions made in the written statement, or to introduce new
pleadings, or to set up a new cause of action, or a plea
inconsistent with the plea taken in the original plaint; (v) a
rejoinder is not a substitute for an amendment.
16.1. However, where the Court, on scrutinising the
plaint and the written statement, feels that it needs elucidation
on a point specifically and newly raised by the defendant in the
written statement or where the Court feels that leave is
necessary to ensure a fair and effective trial of the issues
already raised, by giving the plaintiff an opportunity to explain
14
or clarify facts newly raised or pleaded in the written statement
can grant leave for filing rejoinder.
17. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that Respondent No. 1 – Plaintiff
did not present the proposed rejoinder along with his
application in I.A. No.162 of 2024 before the trial Court. In the
absence of the proposed rejoinder being placed on record, the
trial Court was not in a position to consider the averments of
the proposed rejoinder, to compare the same with the plaint and
the written statement, and to assess whether the filing of the
rejoinder was in fact necessary for the just and effective disposal
of the suit. The trial Court has, in its order, merely recorded the
reasons stated in the affidavit of the Plaintiff and, without any
examination of the contents of the proposed rejoinder,
concluded that “for the complete and effective disposal of the
matter, it is just and necessary to permit the Petitioner to file
rejoinder.” This reasoning is the very kind of mechanical
exercise of discretion which has been deprecated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sheikh Noorul Hassan (supra) and by the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Datta @ Dattatraya Methe
(supra).
15
18. In the absence of the proposed rejoinder being
placed on record, the trial Court was not in a position to assess
and determine whether the filing of the rejoinder was in fact
necessary. Without this determination, the trial Court could not
have allowed the petition filed for rejoinder. The impugned
order, having been passed without the trial Court having had
the benefit of perusing the proposed rejoinder. cannot be
sustained.
19. Further, the objection raised by Petitioner –
Defendant No.1 that the proposed rejoinder may be employed as
a vehicle to introduce averments pertaining to the dissolution of
the partnership firm and rendition of accounts, which pleas
have been held to be barred by limitation by this Court in Civil
Revision Petition No.4349 of 2025 decided today, can only be
adjudicated if the contents of the proposed rejoinder are before
the Court. In the absence of the proposed rejoinder being on
record, neither the trial Court nor the Petitioner was in a
position to verify whether the rejoinder traversed beyond the
permissible scope or sought to introduce impermissible pleas.
This is an additional reason why the exercise undertaken by the
trial Court cannot be sustained.
16
20. This Court is therefore, not inclined to close the
door altogether on Plaintiff’s right to seek leave to file a
rejoinder. The trial is yet to commence, issues have not been
settled, and the Plaintiff may, in law, have a legitimate need to
explain or clarify facts newly raised in the written statement of
the Defendant No. 1, subject always to the parameters laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and followed by this Court.
The appropriate course, therefore, is to set aside the impugned
order and remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh
consideration, with liberty to the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff to
file the rejoinder before the trial Court. Upon such rejoinder
being filed, the trial Court shall reconsider the application
afresh in the light of the rejoinder, the principles laid down in
the judgments referred to hereinabove, and the order passed by
this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 4349 of 2025.
21. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the
considered opinion that impugned order dated 01.11.2025
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge. Mancherial
in I.A. No.162 of 2024 in O.S. No.147 of 2019 cannot be
sustained in law and is liable to be set aside, and the matter is
required to be remanded to the trial Court for fresh
consideration.
17
22. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 01.11.2025 in I.A. No.162 of 2024 in
O.S. No.147 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Mancherial, is set aside and remanded to the Trial Court
for fresh consideration by taking into consideration the following
directions:
(a) Respondent No.1/Plaintiff is granted liberty to file the
proposed rejoinder before the trial Court within one week from
the date of receipt of this order.
(b) Upon the rejoinder being filed by the Respondent
No.1/Plaintiff within one week from the date of receipt of this
Order, as directed in clause (a) above, the entire exercise of
hearing the parties and passing a reasoned order on I.A. No.162
of 2024 shall be completed by the trial Court within a period of
three weeks therefrom.
(c) While deciding the application as directed hereinabove,
the trial Court shall have regard to the parameters laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheikh Noorul Hassan v.
Nahakpam Indrajit Singh, by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Datta @ Dattatraya Dnyanu Methe
v. Sonabai Ganpati Methe (Writ Petition No.8291 of 2022), by
the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Sri Abhivridyasya
Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sahan Enterprises (C.R.P. No. 1907 of
2022), and the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision
Petition No.4349 of 2025, and pass a reasoned order deciding
the application.
18
No costs.
23. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
——– —————————–
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
22nd April 2026
ksld
19
