M/S PRIME PROPERTIESversusSANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED) THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS.

                         [2022] 15 S.C.R. 569                               569


                     M/S PRIME PROPERTIES                                   A
                                   v.
 SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED) THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 7181 of 2022)
                        SEPTEMBER 29, 2022                                  B
  [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
       Pleadings – Filing of – Suit pending for long, multifarious
incidental proceedings – Subsequent pleadings filed by the plaintiff
in the form of rejoinder taken on record by Trial Court, in
                                                                            C
supersession of its earlier order whereby such permission was
declined – Order set aside by High Court – On appeal, held:
Impugned order set aside but the order passed by the Trial Court is
modified – On facts, the defendant Nos. 4 to 11 permitted to place
on record their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder but
only to the extent of new facts, if any, pleaded in the rejoinder filed     D
by the plaintiff – Thus, sur-rejoinder to remain confined to any
such fact, if at all, newly pleaded by the plaintiff in the rejoinder –
This particular proposition is required to be adopted in the present
matter, in view of several features and factors including two
significant factors: one, that under the orders passed by Supreme
                                                                            E
Court, the trial of the suit is to proceed expeditiously while the matter
ought to be assigned a specific priority; and second, that on
31.01.2022, Trial Court had indeed framed additional issues for
the trial – No further issues are required to be framed in this matter
and all other aspects of the matter, particularly those relating to
pleadings be examined by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal      F
of the suit – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
      Disposing of the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 In this matter, essentially pertaining to the
operation of rules of procedure in the trial of civil suits, the views
as taken by the Trial Court in its order dated 29.11.2021 and the           G
order dated 29.12.2021 as also the view as taken by the High
Court in its impugned order dated 14.03.2022 carry their own
shortcomings but, appropriate orders are required to be passed
for ensuring proper progression of the suits. In none of the
referred orders i.e., the orders dated 27.11.2021 and 29.12.2021,           H
                                569
570            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     the Trial Court ever adverted to the fundamental aspect as to
      what were the facts pleaded by the defendants and what was the
      core of pleadings so as to form a specific opinion as to what
      pleadings called for rejoinder; if at all rejoinder was to be allowed.
      On the other hand, fact of the matter remains that the newly added
      defendants had filed written statements on 27.09.2021. Even if
B
      there had been delay in progression of the suit because of variety
      of factors and even if a part of those factors could be referable to
      the delay on the part of the plaintiff, that cannot take away the
      substance of the matter as regards the question as to whether
      the prayer for filing rejoinder was to be granted or not. [Paras 8,
C     9][578-G-H; 579-A-D]
             1.2 The other side of relevant factors is that in terms of the
      orders passed by this Court commencing from the order dated
      08.05.2019, the trial is required to be assigned specific priority.
      It has been pointed out that by an order dated 05.06.2022, this
D     Court in a batch of matters arising out of the same suits, has
      ordered that the Trial Court shall be sending specific report as
      regards progress of the suits and assign them specific priority so
      as to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably before
      31.03.2023. A cognate feature of the matter is that the Trial Court
      had framed the issues earlier on 19.08.2005; and before passing
E     of the impugned order by the High Court, the Trial Court had
      framed seven additional issues on 31.01.2022.In a comprehensive
      consideration of all the relevant factors and features, this appeal
      calls for such orders which may be conducive to the purpose of
      expeditious proceeding rather than protraction because of the
F     procedural aspects relating to the filing of the pleadings. At the
      same time, balance of the operations of the rules of procedure is
      also required to be ensured, so as to avoid any likely prejudice
      to any of the parties. [Paras 10, 11][579-D-G]
            1.3 The impugned order dated 14.03.2022 is set aside but
G     the order passed by the Trial Court on 29.12.2021 shall be made
      applicable with the modification that in the peculiar circumstance
      of this case, the defendant Nos. 4 to 11 shall be permitted to
      place on record their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder
      but only to the extent of new facts, if any, pleaded in the rejoinder

H
    M/S PRIME PROPERTIES v. SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED)                       571
                THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS.

filed by the plaintiff. In other words, sur-rejoinder shall remain         A
confined to any such fact, if at all, newly pleaded by the plaintiff in
the rejoinder. This particular proposition is required to be adopted
in this matter, keeping in view several features and factors
including two significant factors: one, that under the orders passed
by this Court, the trial of the suit is to proceed expeditiously
                                                                           B
while the matter ought to be assigned a specific priority; and
second, that on 31.01.2022, Trial Court had indeed framed
additional issues for the trial. [Paras 12, 13][580-B-D]
       1.4 No further issues are required to be framed in this
matter and all other aspects of the matter, particularly those
relating to pleadings, shall be examined by the Trial Court at the         C
time of final disposal of the suit. The directions already given by
this Court that the matter ought to be assigned specific priority
so that trial be concluded at the earliest, preferably before
31.03.2023 are reiterated. [Paras 14, 15][580-E]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7181                  D
of 2022.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2022 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP No. 204 of 2022.
     Ranjit Kumar, I. H. Syed, Sr. Advs., Sarath S. Janardanan, Srinivas   E
Mantha, Abid Ali Beeran P, Advs. for the Appellant.
      A. C. Pradhan, Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advs., Dhruv Kumar,
Ms. Anshu Gupta, Niraj Gupta, Byrapaneni S., B. Venkateswara Rao,
Abhijit Basu, Kumar Shashank, Ms. Tatini Basu, Mullapudi Rambabu,
N. Eswara Rao, M/s. M. Rambabu and Co., Advs. for the Respondents.         F
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
      1. Leave granted.
      2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated      G
14.03.2022 as passed by the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad in
CRP No. 204 of 2022, whereby the High Court has disapproved the
order dated 29.12.2021 passed by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil


                                                                           H
572             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, allowing the review
      application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
      1908. While allowing the review application, the Trial Court has taken
      the subsequent pleadings filed by the plaintiff in the form of rejoinder on
      record, in supersession of its earlier order dated 29.11.2021, whereby
      such a permission was declined.
B
             3. The matter essentially relates to filing of pleadings but, various
      factors and aspects have got entangled because of the long pendency
      and multifarious incidental proceedings. However, for the present purpose,
      suffice would be to notice the relevant background aspects and
      proceedings to the extent relevant to the questions at hand. They are as
C     follows:
             3.1. The plaintiff-appellant has filed O.S. No. 898 of 2001 in the
      Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.
      Nagar against the defendant No. 1 – Society seeking cancellation of
      sale deed dated 15.04.1996 in relation to a parcel of land situated in
D     Survey No. 1007 at Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
      District. The appellant has also filed three other suits, being O.S. Nos.
      899 to 901 of 2001 for similar reliefs in respect of other parcels of land
      in the said Survey No. 1007.
              3.2. The issues in the suit were framed on 19.08.2005. Then, the
E     plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint on 17.01.2006. According to
      the contesting respondents, the appellant did not carry out amendment
      for a long time and ultimately the suits were dismissed for non-prosecution
      on 05.11.2008. Then the suits were restored only in the year 2011.
             3.3. Thereafter, the contesting respondents herein filed I.A. No.
F     787 of 2018 in O.S. No. 898 of 2001 seeking their impleadment as party
      defendants. This application was dismissed on 31.12.2018. However,
      the High Court disapproved the order so passed by the Trial Court and
      allowed the impleadment of contesting respondents in the order dated
      27.03.2019 passed in CRP No. 391 of 2019. The order so passed by the
G     High Court was sought to be challenged by the appellant in SLP(C) No.
      11052 of 2019 in this Court but, the same was dismissed by the Order
      dated 08.05.2019. In this order, this Court took note of the fact that the
      Trial Court had been directed to decide the suit within six months; and
      while reiterating such directions, this Court also made it clear that any
      other impleadment of individual members in future will not either derail
H
     M/S PRIME PROPERTIES v. SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED)                          573
     THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

or delay the proceeding in the suit. For ready reference, the relevant         A
contents of the order dated 08.05.2019 could be re-produced as under: -
            “The Special Leave Petition is dismissed since it is from
      an order impleading individual members.
             The trial Court has been asked to decide the Suits within
      a period of 6 months. We make it clear that individual                   B
      impleadments of members in futuro will not, in any manner,
      either derail or delay further proceedings in the Suits.
            We reiterate that the trial Court must decide the Suits
      within a period of 6 months from today.”
                                                                               C
       3.4. On 06.06.2019, the Trial Court allowed another application
moved by the appellant for amendment of the plaint. According to the
contesting respondents, the amended copy of the plaint was filed only on
25.03.2021 by adding them as defendants. It has also been pointed out
that on 19.08.2020, this Court again directed the Trial Court to decide
the suits within six months in C.P. No. 433 of 2020. On 23.07.2021, the        D
legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 3 were brought on
record as defendant Nos. 9 to 11. On 26.07.2021, the appellant filed the
amended plaint by including the newly impleaded parties as defendants.
       3.5. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 438 of 2021 seeking
leave to amend the plaint and on 21.09.2021, the appellant filed amended       E
plaint wherein, according to the contesting respondents, the appellant
modified the cause title as also the averments and the prayers.
       3.6. The material aspect of the present matter is that on 27.09.2021,
the contesting respondents filed their written statements to the amended
plaint. The defendant No. 1- Society also filed additional written             F
statement. It has been the case of the appellant that on 20.10.2021, the
defendant No. 2 filed additional written statement raising new grounds.
       3.7. The proceedings leading to the present appeals have their
genesis in the applications filed by the appellant being I.A. Nos. 891 of
2021, 892 of 2021 and 893 of 2021 in O.S. No. 898 of 2021 seeking              G
leave to file further pleadings in the form of rejoinder. In regard to this
application, the contesting parties have different submissions to make.
On one hand, it has been the assertion on behalf of the appellant that
with these applications, the proposed rejoinder was also attempted to be
filed but the same were returned by the office with a direction that the
                                                                               H
574             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     same be filed when the applications are considered by the Court.
      According to the appellant, all the parties were served with the copies of
      the applications as also the proposed rejoinder. The contesting respondents
      filed counter to the application I.A. No. 891 of 2021. The contesting
      respondents would submit that in such a proposed rejoinder, the plaintiff-
      appellant attempted to set up an altogether new case, and that too, without
B
      filing the rejoinder in the Court.
            3.8. On 26.11.2021, the Trial Court heard the arguments on the
      applications filed by the appellant seeking leave to file rejoinder and the
      matter was reserved for orders. Then, on 27.11.2021, the appellant
      purportedly filed the proposed rejoinder in the office of the Trial Court.
C
             3.9. On 29.11.2021, the Trial Court pronounced its order, rejecting
      the application filed by the appellant essentially on the ground that the
      proposed rejoinder had not been filed and in the absence thereof, the
      applications could not be granted. The relevant part of consideration of
      the Trial Court could be usefully reproduced as under:
D
            “5. …In the absence of filing of rejoinder along with petition
            to ascertain whether the said rejoinder confines only to reply
            to written statement and additional written statement, it may
            not be proper to allow petition blanket permitting the plaintiff
            to file rejoinder wherein there is every chance to incorporate
E           a new fact.
            6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/
            defendants are argued that if at all new fact is pleaded by the
            petitioner/plaintiff through his rejoinder, the defendant would
            loose his right to place his defence to the said new fact as
F           there is no provision in law to file the rejoinder to rejoinder.
            In these circumstances and considering the above discussions,
            these petitions are not maintainable and accordingly, these
            petitions are dismissed.”
             3.10. Thereafter, on 13.12.2021, the appellant filed review petitions
G     before the Trial Court, inter alia, with the submissions that the proposed
      rejoinder had already been filed before passing of the order by the Court.
      The review petitions so filed by the appellant, after thorough contest,
      were allowed by the Trial Court by its order dated 29.12.2021. The Trial
      Court proceeded to review its order dated 29.11.2021 and allowed the
      rejoinder already filed by the appellant to be taken on record. The relevant
H
     M/S PRIME PROPERTIES v. SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED)                           575
     THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

part of consideration of the Trial Court, in allowing the review application,   A
is also reproduced for ready reference as under:-
      “12. …On reading the provisions together, this court is of the
      opinion that this case is a fit case to review its order dated
      29.11.2021 and permit the petitioner/plaintiff to file the
      rejoinder which was not placed before this court though filed             B
      and is already on record and to allow the same to be on record.
      The mere filing of rejoinder will not vitiate the rights of the
      parties and however the parties would lead their evidence
      and these pleadings would definitely assist the court in
      deciding the case to its merits. In the circumstances, these
      petitions are to be allowed. Accordingly, both points are                 C
      answered.
      13. In the result, these petitions are allowed by reviewing the
      order dated 29.11.2021 and setting aside the same also
      consequently, the rejoinder which is already filed in Court is
      taken on record.”                                                         D

       3.11. Thereafter, on 31.01.2022, the Trial Court framed seven
additional issues and posted the matter for trial. However, on 01.02.2022,
the contesting respondents challenged the aforesaid order dated
29.12.2021 by way of revision petition in the High Court. In the meantime,
on 10.01.2022, this Court extended the time for conclusion of the trial by      E
another six months.
       3.12. In the revision petition so filed by the contesting respondents
of this appeal, the High Court disapproved the order passed by the Trial
Court in its impugned order dated 14.03.2022 while, inter alia, observing
as under: -                                                                     F
      “20. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, as discussed
      above, the plaintiff has filed original suit in the year 2001 against
      the sole defendant, thereafter the other defendants were impleaded,
      more particularly after impleading the present revision petitioners,
      they have filed a detailed written statement for which the plaintiff      G
      has requested the Court below for permission to file rejoinder
      under Order-VIII, Rule-9 of CPC. Initially, that application filed
      under Order-VIII, Rule-9 CPC in IA No.891 of 2021 was dismissed
      by the trial Court, through the common order, dated 29.11.2021.
      Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order-47,
                                                                                H
576      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     Rule-1 CPC to review the said common order. Accordingly, all
      these review applications are numbered as IA No.1061 of 2021 in
      IA No.891 of 2021, IA No.1062 of 2021 in IA No.892 of 2021 and
      IA No.1063 of 2021 in IA No.893 of 2021 in OS No.898 of 2001.
      All these review applications were allowed and the orders
      impugned in IA Nos.891, 892 and 893 of 2021 were set aside and
B
      they were substituted with a detailed order permitting the plaintiff
      to file rejoinder with an observation that rejoinder which was
      already filed is taken on record. In that view of the matter, since
      under the grab of review the original order is substituted with the
      impugned order, I am not inclined to accept the submissions of the
C     learned senior counsel for the plaintiff.
      21. Undisputedly, the power of review has its own limitations and
      the order or judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is
      a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and permitting
      the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. A review is by no
D     means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
      reheard and corrected, but lies only for a patent error. Thus in
      exercise of power of review, it is not permissible to rehear and
      correct an erroneous decision.
      22. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that the
E     trial Court has committed grave error in allowing the review
      petitions by totally substituting the earlier order dated 29.11.2021
      with the order impugned dated 29.12.2021 in exercise of powers
      under Section 114 and Order-47, Rule-1 CPC. Though the learned
      Judicial Officer has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in
      Ram Sahu’s case (2nd supra), in impugned order at para-12, no
F     attempt was made either to distinguish the same or to follow the
      authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
      on the scope of review petitions. When the facts of the present
      case are tested on the touch stone of principles laid by the Supreme
      Court in the above decisions, the answer is in negative, the order
G     impugned suffers from jurisdictional error and infirmities. The
      learned Judicial Officer is totally misdirected as to the scope of
      review under Section 114 and Order-47, Rule-1 of CPC in passing
      the order impugned dated 29.12.2021 and it is not sustainable,
      liable to be set aside.”

H
     M/S PRIME PROPERTIES v. SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED)                          577
     THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

       3.13. Assailing the order aforesaid, the appellant filed present        A
petition seeking leave to appeal, being SLP(C) No. 6464 of 2022, wherein
on 13.06.2022 this Court, while issuing notices, granted stay over the
operation and effect of the impugned order dated 14.03.2022.
       4. In another set of incidental proceedings, on 07.02.2022, the
appellant filed an application before the Trial Court for receiving 89         B
additional documents, which was allowed by the Trial Court, against
which the contesting respondents filed CRP no. 315 of 2022 and also
sought interim suspension. As per the facts stated by the contesting
respondents, another application filed by the appellants for receiving
additional documents was also allowed by the Trial Court on 22.07.2022,
though a certified copy thereof was issued only on 16.09.2022. The said        C
suspension order dated 04.08.2022 is the subject matter of SLP(C) No.
16151 of 2022 which is also placed on board today before us and shall
be considered separately.
       5. For completion of the background aspects, we may also take
note of the facts stated before us that all the four suits aforesaid stand     D
clubbed and the evidence is being recorded in O.S. No. 898 of 2001.
These suits have been transferred upon re-organization of Judicial District
to the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge Madchalpajgiri District at
Kukutpalti and are re-numbered as O.S. Nos. 588, 589, 590 and 591 of
2022.                                                                          E
       6. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has
submitted that the Trial Court had earlier dismissed the application seeking
permission to file rejoinder on a mistaken impression that the proposed
rejoinder had not been filed and, therefore, when the fact was brought to
the notice of the Court that the proposed rejoinder had, in fact, been filed   F
on 27.11.2021 before pronouncement of the order dated 29.11.2021, the
Trial Court appreciated the error apparent on the face of the record and
rightly reviewed its earlier order and passed a just order on 29.12.2021.
The High Court, according to the learned counsel, has erroneously
interfered with the just and proper order passed by the Trial Court while
not appreciating that every Court has inherent power to recall the order       G
and to rectify a mistake that prejudices a party. According to the learned
counsel, there had not been any jurisdictional error in the matter and
there was no reason for the High Court to upset the order of the Trial
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.                                                                      H
578             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A            7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting
      respondents has made an elaborate reference to the multiple proceedings
      pertaining to the suits in question and has submitted that the suits filed in
      the year 2001 are being dragged on by the plaintiff-appellant for no
      justified reason. The learned counsel, with reference to various
      proceedings as noticed above, has submitted that with multiple propositions
B
      of amendment of the plaint and then filing of the amended plaint at its
      own leisure with insertion of new averments, the plaintiff-appellant has
      only been intending to protract this litigation to the prejudice of the
      contesting respondents. It has also been submitted that in the name of
      rejoinder, the appellant has attempted to introduce an altogether new
C     case. In this regard, learned counsel would also refer to the fact that as
      against 11 pages of amended plaint containing facts in 7 pages, the
      appellant attempted to file a rejoinder running into as many as 38 pages.
      Learned counsel has also referred to the fact that after passing of the
      order by the Trial Court, the appellant has also attempted to file as many
      as 89 additional documents on 07.02.2022 and yet further documents on
D
      26.04.2022.
              7.1. With reference to all the aforesaid features and factors, the
      emphasis of learned counsel for the respondent has been that by not
      placing proposed rejoinder before the Court at the time of consideration
      of the applications on 26.11.2021, the plaintiff-appellant attempted to
E     seek an order for taking rejoinder on record without disclosing as to
      what was sought to be pleaded therein. Such an attempt, according to
      the learned counsel, was rightly disapproved by the Trial Court. However,
      the Trial Court got persuaded to allow the review petition only because
      of filing of the rejoinder in the Court after arguments on the applications
F     and such an approach has rightly been disapproved by the High Court,
      particularly when the Trial Court, in its impugned order dated 29.12.2021,
      did not even indicate as to what were the factual aspects for which
      further pleadings were sought to be filed.
             8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions,
G     having minutely examined the material placed on record as also the lists
      of relevant dates supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant and
      by the learned counsel for the contesting-respondents, we are clearly of
      the view that in this matter, essentially pertaining to the operation of
      rules of procedure in the trial of civil suits, the views as taken by the
      Trial Court in its order dated 29.11.2021 and the order dated 29.12.2021
H
     M/S PRIME PROPERTIES v. SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED)                         579
     THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

as also the view as taken by the High Court in its impugned order dated       A
14.03.2022 carry their own shortcomings but, appropriate orders are
required to be passed for ensuring proper progression of the suits.
       9. For the view which we propose to take in the matter, not much
of discussion appears in requisite. Suffice it to observe for the present
purpose that in none of the above referred orders i.e., the orders dated      B
27.11.2021 and 29.12.2021, the Trial Court ever adverted to the
fundamental aspect as to what were the facts pleaded by the defendants
and what was the core of pleadings so as to form a specific opinion as to
what pleadings called for rejoinder; if at all rejoinder was to be allowed.
On the other hand, fact of the matter remains that the newly added
defendants had filed written statements on 27.09.2021. Even if there          C
had been delay in progression of the suit because of variety of factors
and even if a part of those factors could be referable to the delay on the
part of the plaintiff, that cannot take away the substance of the matter
as regards the question as to whether the prayer for filing rejoinder was
to be granted or not.                                                         D
       10. The other side of relevant factors before us is that in terms of
the orders passed by this Court commencing from the order dated
08.05.2019, the trial is required to be assigned specific priority. It has
been pointed out that by an order dated 05.06.2022, this Court in a batch
of matters arising out of the same suits, has ordered that the Trial Court    E
shall be sending specific report as regards progress of the suits and
assign them specific priority so as to conclude the trial at the earliest,
preferably before 31.03.2023. A cognate feature of the matter is that
the Trial Court had framed the issues earlier on 19.08.2005; and before
passing of the impugned order by the High Court, the Trial Court had
framed seven additional issues on 31.01.2022.                                 F

       11. In a comprehensive consideration of all the relevant factors
and features, we are clearly of the view that this appeal calls for such
orders which may be conducive to the purpose of expeditious proceeding
rather than protraction because of the procedural aspects relating to the
filing of the pleadings. At the same time, balance of the operations of the   G
rules of procedure is also required to be ensured, so as to avoid any
likely prejudice to any of the parties.
      11.1. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to modify the
orders impugned so as to allow the rejoinder to remain on record but, at
                                                                              H
580             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     the same time, to allow the contesting-defendants to place on record
      their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder, to the extent it may
      be necessary.
             12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent and in the
      manner indicated above. The impugned order dated 14.03.2022 is set
B     aside but the order passed by the Trial Court on 29.12.2021 shall be
      made applicable with the modification that in the peculiar circumstance
      of this case, the defendant Nos. 4 to 11 shall be permitted to place on
      record their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder but only to the
      extent of new facts, if any, pleaded in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff.
      In other words, sur-rejoinder shall remain confined to any such fact, if at
C     all, newly pleaded by the plaintiff in the rejoinder.
             13. We also make it clear that this particular proposition is required
      to be adopted in this matter, keeping in view several features and factors
      including two significant factors: one, that under the orders passed by
      this Court, the trial of the suit is to proceed expeditiously while the matter
D     ought to be assigned a specific priority; and second, that on 31.01.2022,
      Trial Court had indeed framed additional issues for the trial.
             14. We make it clear that no further issues are required to be
      framed in this matter and all other aspects of the matter, particularly
      those relating to pleadings, shall be examined by the Trial Court at the
E     time of final disposal of the suit.
             15. We reiterate the directions already given by this Court that
      the matter ought to be assigned specific priority so that trial be concluded
      at the earliest, preferably before 31.03.2023.

F            16. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.


      Divya Pandey                                                Appeal disposed of.




G




H