2025 PLP 1368 (MLD)

Shakeel Ahmad, J.

By this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioners have challenged the vices of the order dated 26th November 2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Khyber, by which he set aside the order dated 25.06.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Landikotal, refusing to allow the respondents/plaintiffs to file rejoinder, and thereby they were allowed to file rejoinder subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents/ plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction to the effect that they are entitled to receive their shares in the income/ rent of the shops, bus stand and land under use of NLC situated at Torkham, Landikotal. They also prayed for restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from payment of monthly income to defendants Nos. 4 and 5.

3. On service of summons, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 appeared before the learned trial Court, contested the suit by filing written statement, raising therein many legal and factual objections. From divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed 11 issues, including the relief on 07.02.2022, and directed the parties to adduce their evidence. Thereafter, on 26.01.2023, the respondents/ plaintiffs submitted an application seeking leave of the Court to submit rejoinder to the written statement submitted by the petitioners/ defendants, which was contested by the defendants by submitting written reply. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 25.06.2024 on the ground that it was filed after 11 months of the framing of issues. Feeling aggrieved with the said order of the learned trial Court, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed civil revision petition before the learned District Judge, Khyber, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 26.11.2024, thereby setting aside the order of the learned trial Court, and allowing the respondents/ plaintiffs to file rejoinder subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Unhappy with the same, the petitioners/ defendants have filed the instant petition.

4. Heard and record perused.

5. It is reflected from the record that after submission of written statement, the respondents/ plaintiffs moved an application before the learned trial Court seeking leave of the Court to file rejoinder to clarify/ answer certain new facts introduced by the petitioners/ defendants in their written statement, but, vide order dated 25.06.2024, the prayer of the respondents/ plaintiffs was declined, however, their request was accepted by the learned revisional Court vide impugned order dated 26.11.2024.

6. A perusal of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. reflects that it enables the Court to allow the plaintiff to file rejoinder in response to the written statement submitted by the defendants. However, it is subject to certain conditions and circumstances under which the Court may permit its filing. It will be advantageous to reproduce Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. as under:- "

9. Subsequent pleadings.-No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same" A perusal of the ibid provision of the C.P.C. reveals that a plaintiff can file a rejoinder only with the leave of the Court. The court has discretion in granting or refusing permission to file a rejoinder, and typically, it will allow it if necessary for a just determination of the lis. If the written statement of the defendant raises new defences or arguments, the plaintiff may be allowed to file a rejoinder to clarify, explain or deny those defences.

7. Thus, rejoinder is an optional pleading and should only be filed under the circumstances where it is needed to respond to new defences or issues raised by the petitioners/defendants that have not been adequately addressed as pleaded by the plaintiffs/ respondents in their written application seeking permission of the Court to allow them to file rejoinder. The Court's discretion envisages that unnecessary or frivolous replies are avoided, promoting efficiency in the judicial process.

8. I have examined the impugned order of the learned revisional Court in the light of Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C, whereby and whereunder the respondents/ plaintiffs were allowed to file rejoinder, and find no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect in it, calling for interference.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. SA/57/P Petition dismissed.