- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Accounting and Audit and Technology topic(s)
The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 15.06.2026 in Sunita v. Bajinder Kumar1, dismissed a petition challenging the Trial Court’s order permitting inter alia the filing of a replication under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, holding that leave to file a replication may be granted where it is necessary for effective adjudication of issues.
In the present matter, Ms. Sunita contended that the Trial Court had mechanically permitted the filing of the replication without any application seeking leave to place the same on record.
The Court observed that while a replication cannot ordinarily be filed as a matter of course, there is no mandatory requirement that leave must be sought through a separate application. It is further clear that the replication is required to be placed before the Court and the Court, upon due application of mind, may either grant or decline such leave. Therefore, the Court held that, since the Trial Court in the present matter had considered Mr. Bajinder Kumar’s explanation and found the replication necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1949 was warranted. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Footnote
1 CM(M) 169/2026
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
