ARUN BHANSALI,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VIII, Rule 9 CPC, has been rejected. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction. In written statement, besides raising other aspects, the locus standi of the petitioners to file the suit was questioned.
(2.) .The petitioners filed replication under Order VIII, Rule 9 CPC seeking to respond to the said aspect of locus standi as raised in the written statement. The filing of the replication was opposed by the defendant.
(3.) The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the proposed replication was only by way of counter to the written statement and, consequently, rejected the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the replication filed by the petitioners, inasmuch as, a perusal of the written statement indicates that a plea challenging the locus standi of the petitioners has been raised and, therefore, the petitioners were required to respond to the written statement by filing replication and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial court and submitted that the replication has been filed only with a view to keep the matter pending and, therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the trial court. ;