SANGEET LODHA - (1.) The matter comes up on an application preferred on behalf of the respondents for preponement of date of hearing. The application is not opposed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is allowed. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage.
(2.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 27.5.14 passed by the Additional District Judge, Barmer in Civil Suit No. 440/10, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC, seeking leave to file rejoinder to the written statement filed on behalf of defendants, the respondent no. 1 and 2 herein, has been rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the written statement filed, the defendants have taken the stand that the agreement to sell in question is forged and concocted document, which has been prepared by Jagdish Prasad Meena by committing fraud. Learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff has taken the objection regarding the outstanding amount shown by the plaintiff as Rs.4,83,300/- inasmuch as, as per the agreement to sell entered into between the parties, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- paid in cash, the outstanding amount comes to Rs. 5,08,300/-. Learned counsel submitted that the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement as aforesaid regarding the agreement to sell being a forged document as also the averments made regarding the error crept in calculating the outstanding amount needs to be controverted/clarified by way of rejoinder and thus, the court below has committed an error in not permitting the petitioner to file rejoinder as prayed for.;