Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Replica Filing: “Non-Denial of Revenue Records Is Not Admission; Documents Must Be Proven During Trial”

Court’s Decision

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court’s order rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file a replica in response to factual assertions in the written statement. The court emphasized that mere non-denial of the respondents’ assertions does not equate to admission, particularly when the documents cited in the written statement are subject to proof during trial.

Facts

The petitioner filed an application before the trial court under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, seeking permission to file a replica to address certain factual assertions made in the respondents’ written statement. These assertions included references to revenue records, such as Jamabandi (1999-2000), Khasra Kirdawri (1998), and Kharief (2022), which recorded the respondents as being in possession of the disputed property. The trial court allowed the application partially but rejected it to the extent of replying to these revenue entries.

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to rebut factual assertions made in the written statement concerning revenue records.
2. Whether the non-denial of respondents’ assertions in their written statement amounts to admission by the petitioner.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that the trial court wrongly denied the opportunity to rebut the respondents’ factual assertions, specifically the revenue entries cited in the written statement. It was contended that such rebuttal was essential to address the claims made by the respondents.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents countered that the revenue records cited in their written statement constituted their defense. They argued that the petitioner’s failure to deny these assertions explicitly did not amount to an admission, as these documents would still need to be proved during trial.

Analysis of the Law

The court analyzed the principles governing pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, which allows the filing of additional pleadings only with the court’s permission. The court underscored that a replica is permissible only when it addresses new facts introduced by the opposite party or when it is necessary to clarify the issues in dispute. Here, the trial court rightly held that the revenue entries, being part of the respondents’ defense, did not necessitate a separate rebuttal from the petitioner.

Precedent Analysis

The trial court referred to precedents to conclude that non-denial of a written statement does not automatically amount to an admission. The court upheld this reasoning, affirming that the revenue records must be proven at trial and cannot be deemed admitted by default.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that:

1. The respondents’ revenue records are part of their defense, and the petitioner’s failure to rebut these in a replica does not prejudice their case.
2. Admission by non-denial can only arise in instances where no dispute exists over the veracity of the documents, which is not the case here as the records require proof during trial.
3. Article 227 of the Constitution does not allow interference with interlocutory orders unless there is a manifest error or gross injustice, neither of which was present.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner’s challenge. The court reiterated that the rights of the parties remain unaffected, as the trial process will determine the validity of the evidence presented.

Implications

This decision reinforces the principle that evidence cited in pleadings must be proven at trial and that interlocutory orders denying additional pleadings do not necessarily prejudice the substantive rights of the parties. It also limits the scope of Article 227 intervention in procedural matters.

Also Read – Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Interference Under Article 227 Limited to Jurisdictional Errors or Manifest Injustice—Petition Dismissed Upholding Trial Court’s Discretion in Condoning Delay