High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mohd. Zafar v. Shafiq Ahmad Khan - SECOND APPEAL No. 337 of 2006  RD-AH 14813 (30 August 2006)
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
The revision challenges the order dated 22.7.2006 whereby the petitioner's application for rejecting the application filed by the opposite parties-plaintiffs, has been rejected.
The aforesaid application of the applicant-revisionist states that the paras-13, 14 and 19 of the replication filed by the plaintiffs relate to the counter claim set up by the applicant in the suit. The remaining paragraphs of the replication are not to be taken into consideration by the court below. The procedure, as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C., makes the reply of the plaintiff to be taken on record only to the extent it relates to the counter claim of the defendant made in the written statement. Therefore, the remaining part of the replication as submitted by the learned counsel should be rejected.
A perusal of the replication filed as Annexure-3 to the supporting affidavit makes it more than evident that the entire of it rests only as reply to the pleadings taken by the applicant defendant in his written statement. No part of it is away from replying to the aforesaid pleadings of the written statement. Therefore, if by way of replication cum written statement to the counter claim made in the defence, the court below has accepted the said replies of the plaintiff and has refused the prayer of the revisionist to reject it, no illegality in such order can be found out. The order of the court below is wholly sound and does not require interference in this revision.
The revision having no force is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.