Supreme Court Allows Sur-Rejoinder in Property Dispute Case: M/S Prime Properties vs. Sana Lakshmi Devi (29 September 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 877

Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a court allow further pleadings after the written statement has been filed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil property dispute, focusing on the procedural aspects of filing a rejoinder and sur-rejoinder. The Court had to determine whether the High Court was right in setting aside the Trial Court’s order allowing the plaintiff to file a rejoinder and whether the defendants should be allowed to file a sur-rejoinder. This judgment, delivered by a bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, clarifies the balance between procedural rules and the need for expeditious justice.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute where the plaintiff, M/S Prime Properties, filed a suit in 2001 seeking cancellation of a sale deed related to land in Ranga Reddy District. Over the years, multiple amendments to the plaint were made, and new parties were added as defendants. The dispute reached a critical point when the plaintiff sought to file a rejoinder to the written statements submitted by the defendants.

Initially, the Trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s application to file a rejoinder, citing that the rejoinder had not been filed with the application. Subsequently, the Trial Court reviewed its decision, noting that the rejoinder had been filed before the order was passed, and allowed it to be taken on record. However, the High Court disapproved of this review, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

The plaintiff-appellant, M/S Prime Properties, originally filed O.S. No. 898 of 2001 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 15.04.1996. The defendants included a Society and other individuals. The plaintiff also filed three other similar suits (O.S. Nos. 899 to 901 of 2001) for similar reliefs concerning other parcels of land in the same survey number. The contesting respondents were later impleaded as party defendants.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially rejected the plaintiff’s application to file a rejoinder on 29.11.2021, stating that the proposed rejoinder was not filed with the application. However, the plaintiff filed a review petition, arguing that the rejoinder had been filed before the order was passed. The Trial Court then allowed the review petition on 29.12.2021 and permitted the rejoinder to be taken on record.

The contesting respondents challenged this order in the High Court, which disapproved the Trial Court’s decision on 14.03.2022, stating that the Trial Court had exceeded its review powers. The High Court held that the Trial Court had essentially substituted its earlier order with a new one under the guise of review, which is not permissible. The High Court also noted that the Trial Court did not follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the scope of review petitions.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with subsequent pleadings. This provision allows the court to permit parties to file further pleadings, such as a rejoinder, if necessary. The relevant part of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is as follows:

“No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same.”

Additionally, Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which pertain to the review of orders, were also considered. These provisions allow a court to review its order if there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The High Court held that the Trial Court had exceeded the scope of review and had effectively reheard the matter.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Trial Court initially dismissed the application to file a rejoinder due to a mistaken impression that the rejoinder was not filed.
• The Trial Court rightly reviewed its order when it was brought to its notice that the rejoinder had been filed before the order was passed.
• Every court has inherent power to recall an order and rectify a mistake that prejudices a party.
• The High Court erroneously interfered with the Trial Court’s just and proper order.
• There was no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s decision.

Contesting Respondents’ Arguments:

• The plaintiff-appellant has been dragging the suit since 2001 without justified reasons.
• Multiple amendments to the plaint and filing the amended plaint at their own leisure with insertion of new averments was only to protract the litigation.
• The plaintiff attempted to introduce an entirely new case in the name of rejoinder.
• The proposed rejoinder was not placed before the Court when the applications were considered.
• The Trial Court allowed the review petition only because the rejoinder was filed after arguments on the applications.
• The Trial Court did not indicate what factual aspects necessitated further pleadings.

Submissions of Parties

The following table summarizes the main submissions and sub-submissions of both parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues, but the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order allowing the review petition and taking the rejoinder on record.
2. Whether the defendants should be allowed to file a sur-rejoinder to the plaintiff’s rejoinder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any case laws or books in this judgment. However, it did consider the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Order VIII Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:* The Court interpreted this provision to allow for further pleadings, such as a rejoinder, with the court’s leave. This was the basis for allowing the rejoinder to be taken on record.
• Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:* The Court considered these provisions in the context of the Trial Court’s review of its earlier order. While the Court acknowledged the limitations on review powers, it also recognized the need to rectify errors to ensure justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance procedural fairness with the expeditious disposal of the case. The court noted that the Trial Court had initially erred in rejecting the rejoinder application and had later rectified this error through a review. However, to ensure that the defendants were not prejudiced by the late filing of the rejoinder, the Court allowed them to file a sur-rejoinder.

The Court also emphasized the importance of adhering to its earlier directions for the speedy conclusion of the trial. The Court’s reasoning was aimed at ensuring that the procedural aspects of the case did not unduly delay the final resolution of the property dispute.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

Fact:Law Ratio

The sentiment analysis reveals that the Court was primarily concerned with the legal aspects of the case, focusing on the procedural errors and the need to rectify them while ensuring the expeditious disposal of the case. The legal considerations weighed more heavily than the factual aspects.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court’s order dated 14.03.2022. The Court modified the Trial Court’s order dated 29.12.2021 to allow the rejoinder to remain on record. However, the Court also permitted the defendant Nos. 4 to 11 to file a sur-rejoinder, limited to any new facts pleaded in the plaintiff’s rejoinder. This modification was made to ensure a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court emphasized that no further issues were required to be framed and that all other aspects of the matter, particularly those relating to pleadings, should be examined by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit. The Court reiterated its earlier directions that the matter should be given specific priority to ensure the trial is concluded at the earliest, preferably before 31.03.2023.

The Court stated:

“In this view of the matter, we are inclined to modify the orders impugned so as to allow the rejoinder to remain on record but, at the same time, to allow the contesting-defendants to place on record their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder, to the extent it may be necessary.”

“The impugned order dated 14.03.2022 is set aside but the order passed by the Trial Court on 29.12.2021 shall be made applicable with the modification that in the peculiar circumstance of this case, the defendant Nos. 4 to 11 shall be permitted to place on record their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder but only to the extent of new facts, if any, pleaded in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff.”

“We reiterate the directions already given by this Court that the matter ought to be assigned specific priority so that trial be concluded at the earliest, preferably before 31.03.2023.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has clarified that while courts have the power to review their orders to rectify errors, this power must be exercised judiciously.
• In the interest of justice, courts may allow further pleadings such as sur-rejoinders to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to present their case fully.
• The need for expeditious disposal of cases is a significant factor in the court’s decision-making process.
• Trial Courts should ensure that all parties are given an opportunity to present their case fully and fairly.
• Orders of the Supreme Court regarding timelines for trial must be followed.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to:

• Allow the rejoinder to remain on record.
• Permit defendant Nos. 4 to 11 to file a sur-rejoinder, limited to new facts pleaded in the plaintiff’s rejoinder.
• Ensure that no further issues are framed.
• Examine all aspects of the matter, particularly those relating to pleadings, at the time of final disposal of the suit.
• Assign specific priority to the matter to ensure the trial is concluded at the earliest, preferably before 31.03.2023.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in civil suits, while courts have the power to review their orders to rectify errors, this power must be exercised judiciously and in a manner that ensures procedural fairness and expeditious disposal of the case. The court also clarified that in the interest of justice, courts may allow further pleadings such as sur-rejoinders to ensure all parties have an opportunity to present their case fully. This judgment emphasizes the importance of balancing procedural rules with the need for timely justice and ensures that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case without causing undue delays.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in M/S Prime Properties vs. Sana Lakshmi Devi clarifies the procedural aspects of filing pleadings in civil suits. The Court allowed the plaintiff’s rejoinder to remain on record but also permitted the defendants to file a sur-rejoinder to ensure a fair and expeditious trial. This decision underscores the importance of balancing procedural rules with the need for timely justice, emphasizing that courts must rectify errors while ensuring all parties have an opportunity to present their case fully.