1986 (8) TMI 451 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order 8, Rule 9, C.P.C. to miscellaneous proceedings.
2. Interpretation of Section 141, C.P.C. regarding miscellaneous proceedings.
3. Right to file a rejoinder in temporary injunction applications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Order 8, Rule 9, C.P.C. to Miscellaneous Proceedings:

The plaintiffs filed suits for permanent injunction and applications for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. The trial court held that Order 8, Rule 9, which allows subsequent pleadings by leave of the court, applies to suits but not to applications for temporary injunction. The plaintiffs argued that the procedure for suits should apply to miscellaneous proceedings, including temporary injunction applications. The court found that the proceedings for temporary injunction are miscellaneous and separately registered, thus, the procedure for suits should be followed as far as applicable. The court emphasized that such orders have significant bearing on the main suit, especially in cases of permanent injunctions.

2. Interpretation of Section 141, C.P.C. Regarding Miscellaneous Proceedings:

Section 141, C.P.C. states that the procedure provided in the Code for suits shall be followed in all proceedings in any civil court, as far as applicable. The trial court's interpretation was that Section 141 did not extend to temporary injunction applications. However, the plaintiffs contended that Section 141 should apply to all civil proceedings, including miscellaneous ones. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the phrase "as far as it can be made applicable" in Section 141 should not be narrowly interpreted. The court concluded that the procedure for suits should apply to miscellaneous proceedings unless specifically prohibited by law.

3. Right to File a Rejoinder in Temporary Injunction Applications:

The plaintiffs sought to file a rejoinder to the defendants' reply in the temporary injunction application. The trial court denied this, stating that Order 8, Rule 9 did not apply to temporary injunction applications. The plaintiffs argued that new pleas or facts introduced by the defendants in their reply necessitated a rejoinder to clarify and explain these points. The court found merit in the plaintiffs' argument, noting that the contingency of filing a rejoinder arises only when new facts are introduced by the defendant. The court held that the trial court should have allowed the rejoinder to ensure justice and truth in the proceedings.

Supporting Case Law:

The court referenced several cases to support its conclusions. In Ganpat Kinushet Sonar v. Vithal Bhikan Patil, it was held that Section 141 applies to miscellaneous proceedings. In Ram Chandra Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that Section 141 applies to civil proceedings, not just original proceedings. The court also cited a Full Bench decision in Nathu Prasad v. Singhai Kapurchand, which held that an application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. is a proceeding within Section 141. The court distinguished these cases from those cited by the defendants, noting that the latter dealt with execution proceedings, not applicable to the present case.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the trial court's orders. The plaintiffs were granted leave to file a rejoinder under Order 8, Rule 9 read with Section 141, C.P.C., ensuring that the procedure for suits is applied to miscellaneous proceedings to achieve justice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.