The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim for set off must satisfy the legal requirements under O.8 R.6 and 6A of CPC, and reliance on Supreme Court decisions on limitation and counterclaim must be valid. Additionally, the principle of legitimacy of judicial reasoning and the clean hands principle were considered in evaluating the defendant's claim.

P. Shanmugam, J.

1. Defendant is the revision petitioner. The suit is filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a loan of Rs. 33,300/- given to the petitioner on 17-6-1991 for the purpose of digging a well, construction of a tank and pump house. For the failure to repay the amount, the respondent filed the suit. Issues have been framed. At that stage of trial, defendant filed 3 I.As. for the following reliefs:

i) I.A. 4264/97: For raising an additional issue on the basis of a counter claim.

ii) I.A. 3994/97: For appointment of a Commission to value the damages suffered by the defendant.

iii) I.A. 229/98: To allow the defendant to pay the court fee.

2. The learned Judge dismissed all these applications. The revision is against these independent orders.

3. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it is necessary to extract Para.11 of his written statement dated 7-4-1997 which has made a counter claim and set off. It reads as follows:

"The defendant firmly believed that the plaintiff bank which is a public corporation having enormous funds would certainly extend the necessary credit to complete the project and make it highly profitable. If the credit had been adequately extended in lump sum and at the right time this property would have produced Rs. 15,000/- per year with a repayment capacity of Rs. 75,000/- per year. The allegation in para.12 of the plaint is emphatically denied. The defendant never violated the terms and conditions of the contract, while it was the plaintiff bank who violated the terms and conditions of the solemn contract by withholding credits and not reimbursing the balance amount of Rs. one lakh which the defendant had raised from different sources at high interest and remain unpaid till date. By the malfeasance of the contract by this plaintiff bank the defendant is put into a debt trap and the project could not be completed till now. For completing the project after cost overruns for the last six years another amount of Rs. 50,000/- will be needed. The plaintiff bank may be directed to reimburse Rs. One lakh as advance and advance another amount of Rs. 50,000/- as further advance to complete the project under the supervision of this Hon. Court. If the plaintiff Bank is not inclined to advance the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the usual conditions and rate of interest of agricultural development loans the above amount may be awarded as damages for the breach of contract and the total amount due to the Bank as per Para.13 and 14 of this plaint may be set off and the balance amount paid as damages. The averments in Para.13 and 14 are admitted."

4. The claim of set off is in the form of an implied contract and a failure to comply with the terms of the implied contract and the resultant damage to the petitioner. The provision for allowing a set off is O.8 R.6 CPC. The main requirement of such a claim are: (a) It must be ascertained the sum of money; (b) such sum must be legally recoverable. In addition to set off, the defendant can also raise a counter claim under R.6A of O.8. But it must be in reference to the same cause of action. It is seen that the subject matter of the suit is a claim of recovery of money given in the form of a loan to the defendant, whereas the claim of the petitioner is an implied contract to pay a further advance and the resultant damage for the non payment of the accounts. Therefore, I find that the cause of action put up by the petitioner is a different one, not directly connected with the recovery of money. Ultimately, assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner can enforce the terms of the implied agreement, it will be barred by limitation since, according to him, the original loan was disbursed in the year 1981 whereas the present claim is on 7-4-1997. According to the petitioner, term loan of Rs. 33,000/- was sanctioned in the year 1991 for digging well. The petitioner dug the well up to 30 feet and has abundant supply of water. But this project had cost