DANAMMA W/O CHANDRASHEKARAYYA HIREMATH vs SHRI. REVAYYA S/O DANAYYA HIREMATH
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16221
WP No. 105353 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020111522026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.105353 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
DANAMMA W/O. CHANDRASHEKARAYYA HIREMATH,
SINCE DECEASED R/BY LEGAL HEIR
SIDDAGANGAWWA @ SHIVALEELA
W/O. SIDDAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 35 YRS, OCC: AGRI.,
R/O: RAIBAG, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI,
DIST: BAGALAKOTE – 587 311.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. REVAYYA S/O. DANAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 77 YRS, OCC: AGRI.,
R/O: NEAR OLD POLICE STATION, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317.
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
high court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench
2. SMT. ANNAWWA
W/O. MAHADEVAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 67 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NEAR OLD POLICE STATION, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317.
3. SMT. KASTURI W/O. DANAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 55 YRS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: TAUNSHI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 212.
4. KUM. LAXMI D/O. DANAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 27 YRS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16221
WP No. 105353 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020111522026
R/O: TAUNSHI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 212.
5. SMT. SHIVALEELA W/O. APPAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 57 YRS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: TAUNSHI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 212.
6. SMT. SHAILAJA W/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 55 YRS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: NEAR OLD POLICE STATION, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317.
7. KUM. PRAJWAL S/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 27 YRS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: NEAR OLD POLICE STATION, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317.
8. KUM. VANI D/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 26 YRS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: NEAR OLD POLICE STATION, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317.
9. SHRI. ASHOK S/O. BALAPPA MANASULI,
AGE: 67 YRS, OCC: AGRI.,
R/O: SHANTINAGAR GADE FARM BEHIND
UNION BANK OF INDIA, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317.
10. SHRI. SADIK ZALEEL MOMIN,
AGE: 49 YRS, OCC: AGRI.,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMADSHANEEF D. SANADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2026
PASSED BY LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., RAIBAG IN
O.SNO.29/2019 PASSED ON IA NO.27 VIDE ANNEXURE – F AND ETC.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16221
WP No. 105353 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020111522026
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.29/2019 is
before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated
09.04.2026, in terms of which an application in IA.No.27
filed under Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff/petitioner
herein seeking leave to file rejoinder to the additional
written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 has been
rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the suit is
filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of
the suit schedule properties. The written statement was
originally filed by the defendants on 22.08.2019 and
additional written statement was filed on 14.03.2025. In
the additional written statement, new plea has been raised
by the defendants denying the relationship. It is under
these circumstances that the plaintiff/petitioner herein
intended to file rejoinder refuting the allegations made in
the additional written statement. That the Trial Court
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16221
WP No. 105353 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020111522026
without adverting to the factual aspect of the matter has
rejected the application merely on the premise that there is
no provision to file replication to the written statement.
3. Learned counsel relies upon the order of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court dated 05.12.2025 passed in
W.P.No.35434/2025 in the case of Sri H.G.Shekar V.
Sri Shome H.G. and submits that the issue squarely
stands covered with said order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submits that the Trial Court when rejecting the application
has relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Mr.Glen Fredric Picardo V.
Mr.Rodney Picardo Since Deceased By LRs. reported in
ILR 2010 KAR 4522, thus, he submits that no error is
committed by the Trial Court.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. Issue whether or not a reply/replication could be filed after
filing of additional written statement fell for consideration
before the Apex Court in the case of Noorul Hassan V.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16221
WP No. 105353 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020111522026
Nahakpam Indrajit Singh and Others reported in
( 2024) 9 SCC 353 , wherein the Apex Court at paragraph
No.10 has held as under:
10 . In Anant Construction (P) Ltd. v. Ram Niwas , the
High Court of Delhi, in an exhaustive judgment
authored by R.C. Lahoti, J. as his Lordship then was,
dealt with the terms “replication” and “rejoinder”, as is
commonly used for subsequent pleadings, as also as
to when leave for filing subsequent pleading may be
granted by the court. After referring to various legal
texts including Corpus Juris Secundum , it was
observed :
“ 12 . A more detailed rather exhaustive
statement of law is to be found in Corpus Juris
Secundum . It would be useful to extract and
reproduce the following paragraphs:
‘A reply or replication is purely a defensive
pleading, the office or function of which is to
deny, or allege facts in avoidance of new
matters alleged in the plea or answer and
thereby join or make issue as to such new
matters. (Para 184)
No reply or replication is necessary where the
issues are completed by, and no new matter is
set up, in the plea or answer. (Para 185 a.)
At common law a replication is necessary
where a plea introduces new matter and
concludes with a verification; but under the
codes, practice acts, or rules of civil procedure
of a number of States a reply to new defensive
matter is not necessary or is necessary only
when ordered by the court . A reply to a
counterclaim is generally necessary; but under
some code provisions no reply or replication is
required in any case. [Para 185 b.(1)]
The discretion which the court possesses,
under some codes or practice acts, to direct
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16221
WP No. 105353 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020111522026
the plaintiff, on the defendant's application, to
reply to new matter alleged as a defence by
way of avoidance will be exercised in favour of
granting the application where the new
matter, if true, will constitute a defence to the
action and granting the order will prevent
surprise and be of substantial advantage to
the defendant without prejudice to the
plaintiff. [Para 185 b ( ii )]
A replication, however, is unknown in the
practice of a few State and in some States is
not permitted. So too, under a statute
providing that there shall be no reply except in
enumerated situations, a reply is not
permissible in a case not within one of the
exceptions. Indeed, generally, in jurisdictions
wherein pleading is governed by statutory
provisions, plaintiff has no right to file a reply
when a reply is not required by statute or
order of court and a reply filed in a case where
no reply is required is to be treated as a
nullity , unless, and to the extent that, it
constitutes an admission by plaintiff, as
discussed infra Para 204.
Under the common law system of pleading,
plaintiff may, at his election, file a replication
to a special plea setting up an affirmative
defence . On the other hand, it is proper to
reject a replication to pleas which merely
traverse allegations of the declaration and set
up no new matter . Where the plea concludes
to the contrary, plaintiff cannot reply with any
new matter but must either accept it by a
similiter or demur. So a good special traverse
can be answered only by joining issue thereon
and not by filing a replication .’ (Para 191)
13 . Decided cases in India use the term
“rejoinder” loosely for a reply or replication
filed by the plaintiff in answer to the
defendant's plea. Strictly speaking a reply filed
by the plaintiff (when permissible) is a
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16221
WP No. 105353 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020111522026
replication. A pleading filed by the defendant
subsequent to replication is a rejoinder.
14 . A replication is not to be permitted to be
filed ordinarily, much less in routine. A
replication is permissible only in three
situations : (1) when required by law; (2)
when a counterclaim is raised by the
defendant; (3) when the court directs or
permits a replication being filed. The court
may direct filing of a replication when the
court having scrutinized the plaint and the
written statement feels the necessity of asking
the plaintiff to join specific pleadings to a case
specifically and newly raised by the defendant
in the written statement. The plaintiff may also
feel the necessity of joining additional pleading
to put forth his positive case in reply to the
defendant's case but he shall have to seek the
leave of the court by presenting the proposed
replication along with an application seeking
leave to file the same. The court having
applied its mind to the leave sought for, may
grant or refuse the leave. Ordinarily the
necessity of doing so would arise only for
“confession and avoidance.”
7. Taking note of the aforesaid judgment, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the aforesaid petition in
W.P.No.35434/2025 had approved and confirmed the order
passed in the said case, allowing application filed by the
plaintiff seeking to file rejoinder to the amended written
statement. The present case also similarly situated.
However, except filing application under Order VIII Rule 9
of CPC, petitioner herein has filed application under Section
151 of CPC.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16221
WP No. 105353 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020111522026
8. Be that as it is. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Noorul Hassan (supra),
followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of H.G.Shekar (Supra) , this Court deems it appropriate
to allow the writ petition. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 09.04.2026
passed on I.A.No.27 in O.S.NO.29/2019
by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Raibag is set aside.
(iii) Matter is remitted to the Trial Court, who
shall reconsider the request of the
petitioner in accordance with law keeping
in mind the law referred to in the
aforesaid orders.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
EM/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36