Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpal ia, in a decision delivered on 11 September 2025, upheld the trial court’s order refusing to permit filing of a replication after commencement of trial proceedings. The Court held that the Civil Procedure Code does not confer any vested right upon a plaintiff to file a replication, noting that such pleadings may only be accepted before framing of issues. The matter involved interpretation of Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning costs imposed for adjournments, and the petitioner’s challenge to closure of the right to place replication on record. The petition was dismissed.

The case arose from proceedings between the petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Verma, and the respondent, Ramesh Ghai. On 23 July 2025, the trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application to file a replication, primarily because evidence of PW1 had already commenced. The trial court further imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, granting only one opportunity to lead evidence subject to such payment.

Also Read: Supreme Court Launches ‘Project Ability Empowerment’, Raises Concern Over Denial of General Seats to Higher-Scoring Disabled Candidates

On the date of the impugned order, none appeared for the petitioner despite repeated calls, although earlier directions of a coordinate bench of the High Court had mandated time-bound disposal of the trial. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the trial court’s decision before the High Court.

Before Justice Kathpalia, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court erred in denying permission to file replication, arguing that the plaintiff had a right to do so. It was contended that counsel was connected through videoconferencing on 23 July 2025 but could not be heard due to connectivity issues, and that an associate was later sent to the trial court. Counsel further stated that the imposed costs had now been paid through UPI.

The respondent, appearing in person, accepted notice and opposed the petition. The trial court record reflected that the petitioner’s applications — one seeking recall of the order closing right to lead evidence, and another for leave to file replication — were decided together, with the trial court rejecting the replication application and granting only a conditional opportunity to adduce evidence.

The petitioner therefore approached the High Court solely against the denial of permission to place replication on record, while no challenge was pressed against the limited opportunity to lead evidence.

Justice Kathpalia examined the scope of filing replication under the Civil Procedure Code and recorded the following: “As reflected from the impugned order, despite last opportunity none appeared on behalf of petitioner to address arguments on pending two applications, one of which was for recall of order dated 27.09.2024, closing right to lead evidence and the other application was for permission to place on record the replication. The learned trial court, keeping in mind that there were directions of this Court for time bound disposal of the suit disposed of both applications, denying the opportunity to file replication and granting one single opportunity to lead evidence subject to payment of cost.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds CBFC’s Refusal of ‘Masoom Kaatil’ | Says Films With Gore, Cannibalism or Derogatory Religious Content Cannot Be Certified in Secular Society

On the aspect of replication, the Court stated: “So far as denial of taking on record the replication is concerned, learned trial court recorded in the impugned order that even the application for permission to file replication was filed subsequent to tendering of evidence of PW1 and the clock could not be turned back. There is no error in the view taken by the learned trial court that the clock cannot be set back and once the trial has commenced, there is no scope of accepting replication, which in any case ought to have been filed prior to framing of issues.”

The Bench further noted: “I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that a plaintiff has a right to file replication. It is trite that the Civil Procedure Code does not contemplate filing of the replication, though it is judicially sanctified that once the replication is taken on record, it forms part of pleadings. There is no right vested in the plaintiff to file replication.”

Justice Kathpalia concluded: “I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld and the petition and the pending applications are dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Yashaswi SK Chocksey, Advocate

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Verma v. Ramesh Ghai
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 7976
Case Number: CM(M) 1787/2025, CM APPL. 57639/2025 & 57640/2025
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia