SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) INSTANT revision impugns the order dated Nov. 1, 1996, of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jodhpur Dist. Jodhpur, whereby the application of the plaintiff -petitioners (for short the plaintiff) moved under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF resume of the facts is that in the suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction, the defendant No. 1 Ashok had filed written statement on August 26, 1994. At that time the service on State of Rajasthan was not effected. The State of Rajasthan filed written statement on September 16. 1996. Thereafter the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking leave of the Trial Court to file rejoinder. The learned Trial Court declined the leave and rejected the application. Mr. A.L. Chopra made a scathing criticism of the impugned order and contended that it was necessary to file rejoinder of the specific pleas pleaded by the State of Rajasthan in the written statement. In declining the permission the learned Trial Court has committed jurisdictional error.
(3.) ON the other hand. Mr. Mishrilal Chhangani, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant No. 1 vehemently canvassed that the application was filed in order to fill up the lacunae of the plaint. The written statement of the State of Rajasthan is virtually verbatim copy of the written statement of the defendant No. 1. When the plaintiffs did not choose to file rejoinder of the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1, he could not have been permitted to file it now.;