IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.
Partha Pratim Roy - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Romi Arora - Respondent
CO No.1414 of 2024
Decided On : 02-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding counterclaim timing. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. counterarguments about adverse possession. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. observations on procedural fairness. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. conclusion to set aside lower court's order. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.
1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 8th February 2024, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division 3rd Court Alipore, 24 Parganas South in Title suit number 950 of 2021, filed by the plaintiff/ Opposite Party on June 13,, 2023, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff for rejection of the counter claim of the defendant has been allowed.
2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the present Opposite Party being the plaintiff filed a title suit before the Learned Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, 3rd court at Alipore praying for a decree of eviction against the defendant from the suit premises along with damages. The said suit was filed on August 16, 2021 and the present Opposite Party/defendant entered appearance on January 27, 2022 and on March 8, 2022 was fixed for filing written statement with a direction upon the plaintiff to serve copy of the documents to the defendant on said date.
3. On June 9, 2022, the defendant made a prayer to extend the time for submission of written statement on the ground of non-service of the copy of the annexure to the plaint was refused on the ground that the statutory period for filing the written statement was over with a direction to show cause as to why the suit should not proceed ex-parte and the date was fixed on July 28, 2022 for showing cause by the defendant/petitioner. On the said date the defendant/ petitioner filed written statement along with counterclaim and petition for acceptance of the written statement with counter claim and also showing cause for the delay. On February 10, 23, the defendant filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for filing the deficit, Court fee on the counter claim and after hearing the show cause petition, the written statement was accepted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000 and directed the defendant/petitioner to file the deficit court fee on the counterclaim.
4. On March 23, 2023 the defendant filed the deficit court fee of Rs. 4280 on counterclaim and the date was fixed on June 13, 23 for payment of cost to the plaintiff which was paid on the very next day on June 13, 2023. On June 13,, 2023 an application was filed by the Opposite Party/plaintiff for rejection of the counter claim principally on the ground on merit of the counter claim of the defendant. The learned Trial court allowed such application of the plaintiff on 8 February 2024 and rejected the counter claim on the ground that counter claim was not accepted on February 10, 2023 itself considering that the counterclaim has been filed along with the written statement as mandated under order 8 Rule 6A and therefore the counter claim is liable to be dismissed.
5. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that from the tenor of the order, it can be gathered that the Learned Court relied upon the provision of Order 8 Rule 6 A of the Code of Civil Procedure where it has been provided that the defendant should filed the counter claim before the expiry of the stipulated time for delivering his defence. Therefore, the learned trial court was of the view that the time limited for filing the counterclaim is terminus with the period of filing the written statement, but question arises when the learned court accepted the written statement and directed the petitioner to pay the deficit court fees how can come to an observation that the period to file the counter claim has expired.
6. The learned Advocate has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar, Kalra vs Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri and others report
Ashok Kumar, Kalra vs Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri and others
State of Punjab and others vs Gurdeep Singh
Thankamma George versus Lilly Thomas and another
Mohammad Baqar & ors vs Naim-un-nisa Bibi
Damodar Narayan Swale (D) through legal representatives versus Teja Rao Bajirao Mhaske
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Hariyana and Anr.
Mahendra Kumar and others versus state of Madhya Pradesh and others
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 must be filed within the limitation period applicable to plaints, and failure to do so results in rejection of the claim.
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.
A counterclaim must be raised before issue framing begins; late submissions risk disrupting judicial efficiency and violate procedural rules.
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.