Subsequent pleadings: O8, R9

 

Code of Civil Procedure

^{ORDER VIII}

¹[Rule 9. Subsequent pleadings.—No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counterclaim 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 of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.]

Note: 1. Subs. by Act 22 of 2002, s. 9, for rules 9 and 10 (w.e.f. 1-7-2002).

Part in Red is taken as it is from Bare Act of CPC

Code of Civil Procedure

Explanation

Pleadings are statements in writing drawn up and filed by each party to a case, stating what his contentions will be at the trial and giving all such details as his opponent needs to know in order to prepare his case in answer. As per law there are two types of pleadings in India: a) Plaint b) Written  Statement. Plaint is a statement submitted by plaintiff in which he sets out his cause of action with all necessary particulars. A written statement, defendant deals with every material fact alleged by the plaintiff and also states any new facts which tell in his favour, adding such legal objections as he wishes to take to the claim.

Subsequent pleading means amended pleading by any of party with permission of the Court.

Such leave of Court is normally given to a party whose opponent has been permitted to amend his pleading. Such subsequent pleading is called, in the case of a plaintiff, a written statement, and in the case of a defendant, an additional written statement.

This written statement is at some places (e. g., in Oudh) called a “replication”. This term was formerly used in England where the plaintiff’s written statement is now called a “reply”. 

Judgments:

1) Venkataswami v. Uppilipalayam Vamana Vilasanidhi, Ltd., (153 I. C. 453—1935 Mad. 117): Under O. 8, R. 9 the Court may require the plaintiff to file a written statement in answer to the pleas of the defendant, but the plaintiff is not as a matter of right, except by way of reply to a set off, entitled to file any such written statement. 

2) Chandra Kishore ». Babu Lai, 1949 Orissa 77 (79) and Nagratnam v. Kamalatha, 1949 Mad. 299 (300). : “The second sentence of O. 8, R. 9 which clearly gives this power to the Court seems to have been overlooked.”

3) Juvansinghji v. Dola Chhala, 1923 (Bom.) 390 (392) ; 27 B. L. R. 890 and Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh, 1957 S. C. 444: The practice of filing such written statements as a matter of course which seems to prevail in some states, is not, however, strictly regular and the plaintiff cannot file it without either express permission or express order of the Court.

4) Bihari v. Chandu, 1939 (Lah.) 386: The Lahore High Court has ruled that, as this is required only to furnish a better statement, the court has power to reject it.

5)