Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NINALA JAYASURYA, SUMATHI JAGADAM
Vaatsalya Health Care Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Malla Venkateswara Rao – Respondent
Judgment :
NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the orders of the learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram dated 19.04.2018 whereby the counter claim of the appellant / defendant filed in C.O.S.No.2 of 2017 was rejected.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as the claimant and the respondent.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated thus:
4. The respondent herein, a Doctor, is the absolute owner of property bearing No.D.No.15-12-16 (A), Near Three Lamps junction, Vizianagaram. He along with his wife Dr.Padma Kumari are running a hospital with Pediatric and Gynecology streams and have good reputation in Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, Srikakulam and some parts of Orissa. The claimant, a Private Limited Company dealing with the administration, development of hospitals etc., offered to take the premises of the respondent on lease, inter alia for the purpose of making it as a multi specialty hospital. The respondent and the claimant accordingly entered into various agreements and deeds including Deed of Lease dated 01.04.2010, Professional Service Agreement dated 01.04.2010, Lease Agreement dated 01.
A counter claim must be filed within the limitation period applicable to plaints, and failure to do so results in rejection of the claim.
The court confirmed a counter claim must be filed within the stipulated limitation, treating it akin to a plaint, and dismissed the appeal as the claim was time-barred.
The judgment establishes that counterclaims can be accepted based on when the defendant gains knowledge of the relevant facts, emphasizing that procedural rules should not obstruct justice.
A counter-claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case.
Counterclaims may be allowed after closing evidence if justified by circumstances; procedural rules must serve justice.
When court had no discretion to disobey mandate of law namely, Section 3(i) r/w 3(2)(b)(ii) of Limitation Act, 1963, and therefore, it could not have granted leave to make a Counterclaim by amending ....
Counter claims must be raised before issues are framed and within the limitation period, as per the Code of Civil Procedure and Limitation Act.
The court clarified that there is no fixed time limit for filing additional written statements to counter-claims, and such filings can be made upon obtaining leave from the court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
