Kashmir HC Leaves Property Plaintiff’s Replication Intact, Though Her Reply to Buyers’ Limitation Plea Was Unjustified

Respondent No. 1, the plaintiff in the underlying suit, amended her plaint to seek declarations that certain powers of attorney and consequential sale deeds concerning the suit property were null and void, along with possession and injunctive relief.

After the petitioners filed their written statement, the plaintiff sought leave under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to reply to specified paragraphs concerning, among other matters, bona fide purchase, proceedings at Hoshiarpur, limitation, the effect of the amendment, Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the parties’ alleged status and relationship.

The Trial Court allowed the application.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227, arguing that the replication introduced a new or inconsistent case and that the written statement raised no new facts requiring a reply.

Order VIII Rule 9 CPC permits subsequent pleadings with the Court’s leave; leave should not be granted mechanically.

Under Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakkapam Indrajit Singh, 2024 INSC 391, a replication is not required merely to traverse the written statement and cannot introduce a new cause of action or a plea inconsistent with the original plaint; it may be allowed where needed to explain or clarify newly pleaded facts for a fair and effective trial.

K. Laxman v. Thekkayil Padmini, (2009) 1 SCC 354, establishes that a replication, if permitted, forms part of the pleadings, but its absence does not amount to an admission of the written statement’s allegations.

Under Article 227, as explained in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, the High Court exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction and intervenes sparingly for jurisdictional error, perversity, grave injustice, or comparable exceptional circumstances.

The High Court examined the particular replies allowed by the Trial Court and found that, in most instances, the plaintiff was addressing matters raised in the written statement—such as the petitioners’ bona fide-purchaser plea, the Hoshiarpur proceedings, the effect of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, and allegations concerning the parties’ status and relationships—rather than setting up an inconsistent case.

However, leave to reply to the limitation plea was unjustified because a replication cannot be permitted merely to deny a defence.

The Court nevertheless concluded that this limited error neither caused a miscarriage of justice nor amounted to a jurisdictional error warranting Article 227 intervention.

Finding no miscarriage of justice or jurisdictional error requiring supervisory intervention, the High Court dismissed the petition and did not set aside the impugned order.