P.S.ASOPA, J. - (1.) THE case was listed for orders on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. Since the question involved in the matter is very short with regard to not taking of the rejoinder by the trial Court on record, although permission was sought for filing of the same, therefore, both the parties consented that the matter may be finally heard and decided.
(2.) ON 16.01,2006, the Civil Judge (JD) Gangapur City (Sawai Madhopur) passed an order that since rejoinder is not accompanied with the application, therefore, application under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC is dismissed. The submission of Mr. G.K. Garg, counsel for the petitioner is that approach of the trial court is not in accordance with the provisions of Order. 8 Rule 9 CPC and the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right of rejoinder as new points have been taken in the reply by the defendants.
(3.) THE submission of Mr. Jinesh Jain, counsel for the Municipal Board is that the petitioner was negligent in not filing the rejoinder and the same was not even accompanied with the application.;