A single bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri has held that Filing of Proposed Replica is not a condition precedent to an application in terms of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. Court observed that all what trial courts are required to keep in mind while considering the prayer of the plaintiff to file replication is the nature of the suit, the relief craved for and the pleas sought to be raised by the defendant in the written statement. However, at the same time, replication cannot be disguised as a fresh suit to alter the very basis of the plaint.
In the case, after the Written statement was filed by the defendants/respondents, an application came to be filed before the trial court under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking leave of the court to file Replica to the written statement on the grounds that the defendants in one para of the written statement had made a statement which was required to be properly explained and replied by him by way of replication. The same was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the Proposed Replica was not filed along with leave application.
The High court analysed the scope of filing subsequent pleadings in terms of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC which reads as:
“9. Subsequent pleadings
No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off [or counter claim] 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.”
Court observed that There is no explicit provision in CPC for filing of “replica‟ and this term is not legally defined anywhere. Ideally, a party in a civil suit is obliged to narrate all the material facts in its pleadings to base his claim. A close reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant, other than by way of defence to set-off or counter claim is permissible except by leave of the court and upon such terms as the court thinks fit. However, in terms of the said provision, Court is also vested with the power to allow a party to file additional written statement. Again, the expression “additional written statement” has not been defined in CPC. However, it is pursuant to the aforesaid provision that Court may allow filing of an additional written statement or in other words “replica” to ensure that no prejudice is caused to other party. Therefore, court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC has been empowered to grant leave for filing of replication in order to allow a party to furnish clarifications regarding additional facts or issues, which may have been raised by the other side in the written statement.
Court held that that if defendant has introduced a new controversy in his written statement, the plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to meet those facts by way of replication. However, there is a caveat that replica cannot be disguised as a fresh suit or a controversy so as to alter the very basis of the plaint.
The court held that the very foundation of the Proposed Replica has already been laid in the leave application and that the filing of Replica was a mere formality. Court held that all what trial courts are required to keep in mind while considering the prayer of the plaintiff to file replication is the nature of the suit, the relief craved for and the pleas sought to be raised by the defendant in the written statement. However, at the same time, replication cannot be disguised as a fresh suit to alter the very basis of the plaint.The court accordingly allowed the petition and allowed the petitioner/plaintiff to file Replica.
