Counterclaims may be allowed after closing evidence if justified by circumstances; procedural rules must serve justice.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

The present petition has been filed against the order dated 17.09.2019 passed in Title Suit No. 170 of 2009 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Nawada whereby and whereunder the application filed by the defendants/respondent no. 10 dated 02.08.2019 to set up counter claim has been allowed.

02. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff/petitioner filed Title Suit No. 170 of 2009 for declaration of his title over the suit land and none of the defendants have any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land seeking further relief to confirm the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land against defendant nos. 1-9 while holding that Revisional Survey entry with regard to the land was wrong, baseless and incorrect. The defendants/respondents appeared and filed their written statement. Another written statement was filed on 07.01.2016 which was accepted vide order dated 14.01.2016. Issues were framed and parties adduced their evidence. After closure of evidence, argument was concluded finally on 23.02.2017. The defendants while arguing the matter relied upon their first written statement and an objection was raised by the plaintiff/petitioner which was allowed. Meanwhile defendants/respondents filed an application for transfer of the matter to another Court which was allowed vide order dated 22.03.2017. Meanwhile, defendant/respondent no. 9 filed a written application bearing CWJC No. 11295/2009 challenging the order dated 15.07.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Nawada in Mutation Revision Case No. 57(R)/08/29(R)/2009 wherein this Court disposed of the writ application vide order dated 01.05.2015 observing that the title suit has been pending since 2009 and both the parties were directed to co-operate in disposal of the case and the learned trial court was directed to dispose of the matter without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and preferably within nine months. It further tanspires that despite the orders of this Court dated 01.05.2015 and on conclusion of the arguments of the parties, the learned trial court did not dispose of the title suit. Thereafter, the defendants/respondent no. 10, the subsequent purchaser of a piece of disputed land vide registered sale deed dated 03.11.2016 executed after the closure of evidence by both the parties filed an application for becoming a party on 09.08.2018 which was allowed on 27.06.2019. Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of respondent no. 10 was also closed on 08.07.2019 and the date was fixed for final arguments. On 02.08.2019, the respondent no. 10 filed a counter claim before the learned trial court. The learned trial court allowed the counter claim filed on 02.08.2019 by the defendant no. 10/ respondent no. 10 under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) vide order dated 17.09.2019. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

03. Mr. J.S. Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed ignoring the facts and the law and the learned trial court has failed to apply its judicial mind and passed the impugned order which is contrary to the law. Mr. Arora submitted that it is the settled law that right, title and interest and the subsequent purchaser depends upon the fate of the suit which is being contested by the vendor. Accordingly, purchaser has got no independent right apart from the right which the vendor has got. The respondent no. 10 purchased the disputed land not only during the pendency of the suit but also after the evidence was adduced. Further at the time of filing of written statement, the respondent no. 10 did not make any counter cl