Defendants challenged permission to file a replication in a property suit.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that Order VIII Rule 9 does not permit routine traversal, a new cause of action or substitution for amendment; leave must address genuinely new matters requiring clarification for a fair trial. Most of the replication explained specific defences concerning bona fide purchase, prior proceedings, migrant status and authority to sell, without changing the plaintiff’s case. Permission merely to deny limitation was identified as unwarranted. Nevertheless, that defect did not justify setting aside the entire order under Article 227 where no miscarriage of justice or jurisdictional error warranted intervention. The supervisory petition was dismissed; replication was not endorsed as an unrestricted pleading right.
Case — Mohammad Khurshid Alam and others v. Sarita Bhateja and others · CM(M)/283/2026 · 30 October 2026 · Srinagar wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioners — Mr. A.M. Dar, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Monisa, Advocate. Respondents — Mr. M.A. Makhdoomi, Advocate, with Ms. Shaista, Advocate.