- (1.) By way of present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 02.06.2016, passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") whereby petitioner's application under Order VIII Rule 9, seeking to take rejoinder on record has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. Mr. RS Mankad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 02.06.2016, contended that since the defendant has brought in various new facts, the plaintiff - petitioner should have been given an opportunity to file rejoinder to meet with the same. In aid of the above argument, he invited the attention of this Court towards 'special pleas' taken by the defendant in his written statement and tried to impress that defendant has brought in numerous new facts, which are beyond his defence; in light of these, he submitted that the petitioner is required to file rejoinder. Attacking the order impugned, he argued that the learned Trial Court has rejected petitioner's request for filing rejoinder on the reasons which are not relevant to the provisions of the Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that merely because the rejoinder was being filed after five years of the written statement, his right of the filing rejoinder cannot be refused. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case wherein supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised. The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion and has observed that there are no new facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement and the facts which have been stated in the written statement are nothing but defendant's own defence. Having perused the pleas taken by the defendant in his written statement, this Court is satisfied that the detailed averments made in the 'special pleas', are nothing, but the defendant's defence about the disputed the transaction. Needless to observe that such facts need to be proved by the defendant, even if they are assumed to be new. It is also to be noticed that the plaintiff - petitioner has moved the present application, seeking leave to file the rejoinder after five years of filing the written statement, when the matter is fixed for plaintiff's evidence. In view of the overall analysis of the extant facts, this Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition thus, fails.;