Leave to file replication under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC requires court satisfaction, not a separate application.

The Petitioner (Defendant No. 1) challenged an order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the Trial Court in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction.

The Trial Court had condoned a 13-day delay in filing the Petitioner’s Written Statement and subsequently permitted the Respondent (Plaintiff) to file a Replication and a Rejoinder to the interim relief application.

The Petitioner’s request to file a Rejoinder to the Respondent’s Replication was declined.

The Petitioner contended that the Replication was allowed mechanically without a formal application or recorded reasons, and that she was unfairly denied a right to respond to it.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in law by permitting the Respondent to file a Replication under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC without a formal application and without recording detailed reasons.

2. Whether the filing of a Replication under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC is a routine matter or requires the specific leave and satisfaction of the Court.

Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which mandates that no pleading subsequent to the Written Statement of a defendant shall be presented except by the leave of the court.

Principle from Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh (2024) 9 SCC 353, approving Anant Construction (P) Ltd. v. Ram Niwas (1994), establishing that a replication is permissible when the court directs it after scrutinizing new matters raised in a written statement to prevent surprise.

The High Court observed that while leave under Order VIII Rule 9 is required, there is no inflexible procedural rule necessitating a separate written application as long as the proposed pleading is before the court for consideration.

The Court scrutinized the Trial Court's record, noting that the Respondent’s Replication was intended to address the Petitioner's denial of a site plan, which the Respondent claimed was originally provided by the Petitioner during the property purchase.

The Court found that the Trial Court did not act mechanically but had recorded its satisfaction based on the Respondent’s oral submissions that certain facts in the Written Statement were contrary to the record and required clarification.

The Replication was necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit.

There was no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the Impugned Order dated 29.10.2025.

The Petition under Article 227 and the pending application were dismissed with no order as to costs.