The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has allowed a writ petition filed by Pratibha Industries Limited, holding that a rejoinder cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay, as Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not prescribe any limitation period for filing subsequent pleadings. Justice Sanjeet Purohit has set aside the Commercial Court’s order refusing to take the rejoinder on record and directed that the suit be proceeded with expeditiously.
The dispute arises from a ₹168-crore contract awarded in 2012 for execution and operation of the Barmer Lift Water Supply Project. After the State rescinded the contract in 2018 and forfeited the security deposit, the contractor initiated a commercial suit in 2022 seeking declarations, recovery, and damages. During the pendency of the suit, Pratibha Industries’ business was taken over as a going concern by another company pursuant to liquidation proceedings, and the suit was permitted to continue under the new management.
Following completion of evidence, the petitioner sought to file a rejoinder to respond to what it described as new factual assertions and fresh interpretations of contractual clauses raised by the State in its written statement. The Commercial Court rejected the application, holding that it had been filed at a belated stage.
Interfering with that decision, the High Court held that the Commercial Court had failed to apply settled legal principles governing Order VIII Rule 9 and had committed a jurisdictional error by rejecting the application solely on delay. The Court noted that a rejoinder may be permitted at any stage, provided it does not alter the nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the opposite party.
The Court noted that Order VIII Rule 9 confers wide discretion on the Court to permit a rejoinder “at any time”, and that delay by itself is not a valid ground for rejection, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. Referring to the Apex Court judgement in Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally, (2009) 15 SCC 528, and earlier Rajasthan High Court decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Iqbal, 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 275, the Court reiterated that a rejoinder is permissible to explain or rebut new facts or interpretations introduced in the written statement, so long as it does not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action.
The Court also took note of the petitioner’s undertaking that no additional evidence would be led and no further cross-examination would be sought if the rejoinder was taken on record, thereby addressing concerns of reopening the trial.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned order, allowed the rejoinder to be taken on record, and directed the Commercial Court to proceed with final arguments and dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within two months
Appearance:
For Petitioner: Advocate Ramit Mehta, with Tarun Dudia, and Aman Khan.
For Respondents: Advocate P.S. Chundawat and Mayank Vyas.
