AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The petitioner filed a civil revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh against the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, in Civil Suit No.148 of 2025 titled "Mukul Sahagal vs. Mousumi Dasgupta". By that order the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file a replication to the written statement was dismissed without any valid reason. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction (Annexure P-2), which was contested by the respondent/defendant Mousumi Dasgupta by filing her written statement (Annexure P-3). The petitioner then filed an application (Annexure P-4) seeking permission to file his replication, the replication prepared being Annexure P-5. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram declined the application. It was pointed out that till date the case is pending for arguments on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and even the issues are not framed. The court recorded that all necessary documents are annexed with the civil revision, and therefore no purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent, and notice was accordingly dispensed with.
Law Points
Whether the petitioner/plaintiff, whose suit for declaration along with permanent injunction is contested by the respondent/defendant by a detailed written statement, is entitled to file a replication to rebut the facts narrated in that written statement, and whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application seeking permission to file such replication without any valid reason.
Acts & Articles
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Judgments Referred
Not discussed in this judgment.
Obiter Dicta
Not discussed in this judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner/plaintiff has got every right to rebut the facts narrated in the written statement by filing a replication, particularly where the trial is still at an initial stage, issues have not yet been framed, and no prejudice is caused to the respondent/defendant. An application seeking permission to file a replication cannot be declined without any valid reason.
Final Ruling
The impugned order dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, is set aside and he is directed to re-consider the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The civil revision is disposed of with these observations, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Notice to the respondent was dispensed with.
Plain-Language Gist
The petitioner sued the respondent and she filed a written statement in reply. He wanted to file a replication to answer the points she raised, but the family court refused permission without giving any valid reason. The High Court set aside that refusal and told the family court to reconsider his application, since the case is still at an early stage and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.(Oral)
Petitioner has filed civil revision against the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, in Civil Suit No.148 of 2025 titled “Mukul Sahagal vs. Mousumi Dasgupta” whereby application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file replication to the written statement has been dismissed without any valid reason.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he has filed suit for declaration along with permanent injunction (Annexure P-2), which is contested by the respondent/defendant Mousumi Dasgupta by filing her written statement (Annexure P-3). Present petitioner filed application (Annexure P-4) seeking permission to file his replication. The replication prepared by the petitioner is Annexure P-5. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, without any valid reason declined the application vide is pointed out that till date case is pending for arguments on application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and even the issues are not framed.
I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record.
All the necessary documents are annexed with the present civil revision. Therefore, no purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent and the same is accordingly dispensed with.
Perusal of proceedings before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, indicates that till date the case is pending for arguments on application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and even issues are not framed as yet. The respondent/defendant filed detailed written statement (Annexure P-3). Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff has got every right to rebut the facts narrated in the written statement by filing replication. The trial is still at initial stage. The respondent is not going to suffer any prejudice. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, is set aside and he is directed to re-consider the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.
With these observations, the present civil revision is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.