After Defendants Deny Kinship in Partition Suit, Karnataka HC Orders Fresh Consideration of Plaintiff’s Request to Reply

The petitioner, plaintiff in a partition suit, challenged the Trial Court’s order rejecting her application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for leave to file a rejoinder to the additional written statement of defendant Nos. 1 to 8.

The defendants had filed their original written statement on 22 August 2019 and an additional written statement on 14 March 2025, which, according to the petitioner, raised a new plea denying the relationship between the parties.

The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision to file a replication.

The petitioner relied on a coordinate Bench decision in H.G. Shekar v. Shome H.G., while the respondents supported the Trial Court’s reliance on Glen Fredric Picardo v. Rodney Picardo.

Under Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh, (2024) 9 SCC 353, a replication is not ordinarily filed as of right or as a matter of routine.

It may be filed when required by law, in response to a counterclaim, or when the court directs or permits it; a party seeking to advance a positive case in response to new matter should seek the court’s leave, which the court may grant or refuse after applying its mind to the request.

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in H.G. Shekar v. Shome H.G., W.P. No. 35434 of 2025, dated 5 December 2025, which had considered an application to file a rejoinder to an amended written statement.

The petitioner sought to answer an alleged new plea in the additional written statement—denial of the parties’ relationship—by filing a rejoinder.

Applying Noorul Hassan, the Court considered that leave to file a replication is a matter for judicial consideration, rather than an application to be rejected merely because no general provision permits replication as of right.

It noted that the coordinate Bench had allowed a similar request, but also that the petitioner here had applied under Section 151 CPC rather than Order VIII Rule 9 CPC.

In light of the cited authorities, the Court set aside the Trial Court’s order and directed it to reconsider the request in accordance with law.

The Court did not itself grant leave to file the rejoinder.