M/S. Sri Abhivridyasya Associates PVT. LTD vs. Sahan Enterprises

The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of supply of variety of goods. The respondent is a proprietary concern of Mr. Vedera Ravikanth Reddy and engaged in the business of various goods. In the year 2Ol7 the proprietor of the respondent approached the petitioner with a request to supply various baby care products which include clothes, quality baby soaps, Baby oi1, Baby powder, Mosquito net, toys, napkins Diapers etc. The respondent claimed that it Las securcd a sub-contract for supply of baby care products kits titled as "KCR Kits". The respondent assured that it shall pay the invoice amounts to the petitioner within a week's time from the invoice date. It was also agreed by the respondent that, in the event of delay in payment of invoice amount to the petitioner, the entire outstanding amount should be paid by the respondent along with an interest @8%o per annum for the entire delayed period.

In t t ttts ,t of liits ,' ( l)lrl represenlrLiivcs. r ordels, thr t)c1ili invoices. Iolirl crofes si.i l\ oll(] onlr.). 4. r\cc or-, lin l petiticx'ic r ilnd i resllondcjr I . 'l'l ) ( also rellr:,: tld ir responde:;.r I Ir;rs : basing on lirc (.i I petitjoncr lo th,' r

The petiiir business trarr)sac from time to tirnr payments tc thc l The last :l.r),nr cl 29.10.20I (l lbr a .t -4-

It is submitted that the petitioner approached respondent on severai occasions to clear the pending dues but the respondent dodged the payment on one pretext or another. The petitioner along with its staff members visited the respondent office several times and requestcd to clear the long pending dues but the respondent tried to impress the pctitioner by saying that he has high contacts in the Government Department and will clear the pending dues at the earliest. Contending that inspite of requests made in person and lega1 notices issued demanding payment of outstanding dues the respondent did not comply, the petitioner instituted COS.No.24 of 2027 seeking for a recovery of 1 2,OO,lO,7gO.71l- (Rupees two crores ten thousand seven hundred and ninety and seventy one paisa only) excluding the interest @ 8o/o P.A., until ful1 pal,rnent/ realization from respondent herein.

Respondent filed counter to LA.No.162 of 2027 in COS.No.24 of 2021. It is the case of petitioner that in the counter the respondent introduced several new pleas and presented a completely different picture before the Hon'bie Court in respect of the dispute that arose between the parties. To answer their new pleas petitioner sought leave of the Commercial Court to file rejoinder to the counter filed by the respondent. The petitioner also fi1ed its rejoinder. Vide order dated 28.O4.2022 th,e Commercial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this Revision. ,/ /

Ltar r ,'tl ,: gros sll' (-':-rari i I respondclli h:,s gravc prcju(lic('\ 9 . Hi: ir',1: l, I set-olT. l"r ( rcl )r of set-off s clc:r i, set-off. It is ir I marldatotal. 'l'i lc rule appli,-'s to l'rl off. This is i 'lcr r r

Hc u,,rnl, i appreciati r) il t ri verification is r Lo'

Per cc'ntrrt, denied t hr' r'on r t:r The plain r.ill has ca-nnot g() on :t(l( of rep11,. T'r c' trr',1 ,r rsel hr petitionc: $'ould contr:rd :l ri tl trial Court :t t ing its a1;plication to seek le:.r.e t:, il.c r,toin,ler. Tl-re i,is,:cl seYeral neu plcas zrnd urlcs; llrC\ jrc rcbutted rrrlci be causcd to pctitioner durirrg t1't", ial. u lrrrrit thtrt in thr: $ritten stateretlt r rs l()l lcr)t pleaded . ;rctitioncr is cntitlcd to deny th<r s;ln:. Llrrlcss the plea I pr titioner- \\-oir ld llc deprived ol cor-l. ,. -inil rhe clerim of . l'orm of cross-suit and opportu:-rity t,, :tcny the same is rii.LI Court grossly crred in not apDreci. lirg . rat .,vhatever rrl e rvritten statcnrclrt in a suit, .rppl ,,'-. r'r z rs\r,er to set- l rr.r Rules 6 and 9 o[ Order VIIL ri 't1rcr submiL thal the trial Cortrt 17-;:rsly crrcd in not ls pcr Rules 34 ald 35 of Cir.i. I? -rlc; of Practice ' ',1r r ircd lor r lfid a vit s. ! cc r.ling to counsr:l for respondt nt. ,1 c re s|oncient only l:' ol the plaint and therelore rejo:nder s no - l)elnissible. 1,) ritate in clear tcrms al1 plearling,; ir tl ,. plr.rint and rq nc\\'pieaclings in the form of rejc,in,l,:'u rcler the garb ii rurt rightll, exerciscd its discret 611 1n 1i jcct the LA.

In paragraph 23 (b) of written statement in COS.No.24 of 2O2l and in paragraph 2apl of counter aflidavit in I.A.No.162 of 2027 the respondent/ defendant contended that as petitioner supplied defective prodtrcts, MAA Yarn and Fibres deducted < 22,AO36A /-. It is also asserted that on the request of petitioner payment of t 10,0O,000/ - u,'as made to PNP Polytex Private Limited. It is also asserted that material was supplied with delay arld therefore, plaintiff should pay the penalty @ 20% on total cost. In paragraph 23(c) and (d) of written statement and paragraph 24(c) and (d) of the counter in I.A.No. 162 of 2021 the respondent asserted that defendalt is entitled to receive penalty @ 2Ooh dtue to delay in supply of the material. In paragraph (d) defendant gave calculation of amounts and records that { 4,23,288/- is due from plaintiff on1y. In other words, the respondent make a claim that plaintiff is only due < 4,23,2881- and not vice-versa. The petitioner asserts that these aspects were brought in for the Ilrst time and therefore, require rejoinder.

Filing of rejoinder is not a matter of course. Whenever plaintiff intends to file rejoinder to the written statement, he must seek leave of the Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC. Wide discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or reject such a course. The primary objective of this provision is to curtail lengthy pleadings and to avoid unwarranted delays in commencement of trial. The rejoinder cannot be for mere denial of ,/ *u

Leanrr:d cr i:rscl lor plain t iit/ petitioncr has tal<e r us through the \\rritten stirtcmcr: /.:o:nter allirlirvit to point out l.l'rirt ;e-ta;rr assertions made in thc q.riti rr sratement in COS.No.24 of 2Oi I rrrrr i r tlrc counter in I.A.No. 162 <tf 20| I .uc not covclld in the plaint an(I. tl ,3'elt.r'e, require a rejoindei'.

Learned s lglc Judgc o[ this Court considerr'd tlris issue in Malgireddy Venl ata Ramana Vs Thippana Narsi Redc.y:r. J)aragraphs-7 and 12 read as u der : '

In Goran la K,)ndalara_vudu Vs Marvcl Orgaics 119!)7 t2) LS 122), a learncd Sing: Judgc of this Court has held that ad(lili( nr.1 p t:adings under Order l, Rulc 9 CPC include the additional plaint. F,1ra.1 of the judgrncnt ne( ls to be noted arlcl it is thus : r fi, Fule 9 of Ct'C shoukt not be confused by rcading to 3x 1er llat it only rdditional rrl.rtlen statement by lvay of pleldings. B,:causc thc )n uscd therein is rhat no plcading subsequent Lo wr,ttrn stat( Ilrent frled mcaning thereby botb plaint and Mitten Jtatemer r. Pleacirlgs an plaint aid wriltcn statement as per Order 6, rul{: r)l),:). Ir that thc pleadings and additional pleadings in Order 8, rule ) i clu(. the al pla.nt also lrhich car) bc cilhe. callcd as rejoincler or 1l c reply in its "4, ()rd perl:1it! shall b shall n addirio real cor

Thc p inrary ob.ject of subsequent plcading is to sLr )ply ulrat has becn omittec inacrvertcntly or unintentionally or t(, dr:n1' o| cl.rrify the facts stated r thr: pleadings of the oppositc party. In tr( rjoinder the I zoro (:) at.n r:

Wc are in rcspectful agreement with the view expressed by learned single Judgc ir-r Malgireddy Venkata Ramarra (supra). Similar view is i 8. On going through the averments in the re-joinder, we are satislied that they are not contrary to the plaint averments and are intended to explain the assertions of the defendant in the written statement and in the counter respectively and the plaintiff is entitled to file rejoinder. It is not intended to procrastinate the proceedings or to widen the scope of the suit or change the nature or character of the suit.

The trial Court relied upon Order VI Ruie 15A of CPC as amended and made applicable to commercial disputes before the Commercial Courts to hold that pleadings are not verified as prescribed in the Appendix-I appended to the Act and same is not valid. S I

Acc rrdingll', the lcvision peljtion is allcl r: i. \{isr:cllaneous Applicatrons, if ary pending, stand closed. //// S;D/. G. SIREESHA ASSIIiTANT REGISTRAR t- SEC TION OFFICER One Fair Copy to th I Hon'ble Sri. Justice P. Naveen Rao (For His Lor Iships kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to th : Hon'ble Sri. Justice J. Sreenivas Rao (For His Lo dships kind Perusal)

B LR Copies

The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

The Secretary Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings Hyderabad. OK&-