Replication, Once Permitted, Becomes Part of Pleadings—Defendants Entitled to Respond Through Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Replication is not a nullity—when permitted by court, it forms part of pleadings and any new facts introduced therein must be allowed to be controverted by the opposite party”, ruled the Punjab & Haryana High Court, allowing a civil revision petition and setting aside a trial court order that had wrongly denied defendants’ request to amend their written statement.

Delivering the decision in the matter of Gagandeep Singh Brar & Others v. Mandeep Singh & Others, Justice Sudeépti Sharma held that the trial court fell into error by treating replication as non-pleading, thereby denying the defendants an opportunity to respond to new facts introduced by the plaintiffs in replication. The Court permitted the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, affirming that such rebuttal was essential for complete and fair adjudication of the suit.

“Right to Rebut Replication Cannot Be Denied—To Bar Such Response is to Accept Uncontroverted Pleas as Admitted”

The central issue before the Court was whether the defendants (petitioners) could be permitted to amend their written statement to respond to new factual assertions introduced by the plaintiffs in their replication. The trial court had dismissed the defendants' application on the ground that replication is not part of pleadings and hence cannot be responded to via amendment.

Rejecting this reasoning outright, the High Court clarified: “Replication, when permitted by court, falls within the realm of pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. Defendants cannot be deprived of their right to controvert new facts merely because those facts appear in replication rather than in the plaint.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini, 2009 (1) RAJ 78, which held:

“Replication filed with the leave of the court becomes part of pleadings and cannot be ignored in adjudication.”

Further relying on Salig Ram v. Shiv Shankar, 1971 AIR P&H 437, the Court reiterated:

“If a plea is taken in replication for the first time and is not specifically denied, it will be deemed to have been admitted. Therefore, the right to respond is fundamental.”

“Suit at Initial Stage—No Prejudice to Plaintiffs by Allowing Amendment”

Noting that issues were yet to be framed, and the suit was still in its preliminary stage, the Court found no merit in the plaintiffs' objections that the amendment would introduce a new defence or cause prejudice.

Justice Sharma observed:

“The proposed amendment neither alters the nature of the defence nor causes injustice to the plaintiffs. Rather, it promotes full and fair adjudication and avoids multiplicity of litigation.”

The plaintiffs had objected on the ground that the defendants were introducing, for the first time, a plea that they had sown the crop over the disputed land. The High Court, however, held that this was a rebuttal to factual claims made in the replication and therefore could not be denied.

“Replication Is Permissible with Leave—And What Is Permitted Must Be Answered”

Addressing the legal character of replication, the Court referred to the latest Supreme Court decision in Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajjit Singh, 2024 INSC 391, and held:

“Though Order VI Rule 1 CPC defines ‘pleadings’ as plaint and written statement, replication is permissible under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC with leave of court and once allowed, becomes part of pleadings.”

The High Court stressed that once the court permits a replication, it cannot treat it as irrelevant or exclude it from the pleadings framework, as that would nullify the very purpose of the replication and result in one-sided adjudication.

“Amendment Ensures Fair Trial—Defendants Must Be Allowed to Respond to New Allegations”

Referring to judicial precedents and applying the settled principles of procedural fairness, the Court ruled:

“If a party introduces new factual assertions in replication, the opposing party must be given an opportunity to respond. Denial of such right will result in deemed admission and seriously prejudice the defence.”

The Court invoked Hakam Singh v. Jagir Singh, 1991 (2) RRR 170, which allowed amendment to the written statement even after replication, provided that no change in the nature of defence or prejudice to the other party was caused.

High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order—Amendment Application Allowed

In view of the above findings, the High Court allowed the Civil Revision setting aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagraon, District Ludhiana, and directed:

“The amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is allowed. The trial court shall accept the amended written statement filed by the defendants and proceed with the suit accordingly.”

Procedural Fairness Demands Equal Opportunity—Replication Cannot Be Immune from Rebuttal

The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural fairness requires equal opportunity to both parties, and once the court permits a replication, it must also allow the opposing party to amend their pleadings to respond meaningfully. The ruling also serves as a timely clarification of the status of replication under the CPC, ensuring that civil litigation remains a balanced process rather than one skewed in favour of one party through procedural technicalities.

Date of Judgment: 8 October 2025