Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Partha Pratim Roy – Appellant
Versus
Romi Arora – Respondent
| 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 f
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 ....
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
