SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Raj) 458

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
Madan Lal - Petitioner
Versus
Rajendra Kumar & Ors - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 19802 of 2012
Decided On : 28-01-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal, Advocate.

A counter-claim cannot be filed after the framing of issues and commencement of evidence, as it would defeat the purpose of treating the counter-claim as a cross suit and trying the issues arising therefrom along with the issues arising in the suit.

Headnote:

COUNTER-CLAIM - TAKING ON RECORD - ORDER 8 RULE 6A CPC - COURT'S DISCRETION - AFTER FRAMING OF ISSUES AND COMMENCEMENT OF EVIDENCE - NOT PERMISSIBLE - COUNTER-CLAIM CAN BE FILED BY WAY OF SUBSEQUENT PLEADING OR AMENDMENT SUBJECT TO COURT'S DISCRETION.

Fact of the Case:

Defendant-petitioner challenged the order of the trial court dismissing his application to take the counter-claim on record, arguing that the counter-claim could be filed even after the framing of issues and commencement of evidence. The plaintiff-respondent opposed the petition, contending that the counter-claim was not included in the written statement or in the subsequent application for amendment, and that it was filed with the intention to delay the proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the application to take the counter-claim on record, as the counter-claim was filed after the framing of issues and commencement of evidence. The court noted that a counter-claim can be filed by way of a subsequent pleading or amendment, subject to the court's discretion, but that allowing a counter-claim after the commencement of evidence would defeat the purpose of treating the counter-claim as a cross suit and trying the issues arising therefrom along with the issues arising in the suit.

Issues: 1. Whether a counter-claim can be filed after the framing of issues and commencement of evidence? 2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to take the counter-claim on record?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to file a counter-claim runs with the right of filing a written statement. 2. A counter-claim can be filed by way of a subsequent pleading or amendment, subject to the court's discretion. 3. Allowing a counter-claim after the commencement of evidence would defeat the purpose of treating the counter-claim as a cross suit and trying the issues arising therefrom along with the issues arising in the suit.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dismissing the application to take the counter-claim on record.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammad Rafiq, J.

This writ petition has been filed by defendant petitioner - Madan Lal assailing the order dated 4/8/2012 passed by Additional District Judge No.5, Kota by which his application for taking counter-claim on record has been dismissed with cost of Rs. 200/-.

2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit alleging therein that a shop and house admeasuring 60x15=300 square feet owned by petitioner situated in Village Naya Nohara, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, was purchased by him from Chittar Lal. Petitioner obtained loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce - respondent No.2 by hypothecating the shop and the house with the said bank and respondent No.1 stood surety for the petitioner. Petitioner however could pay only 4-5 installments and did not pay the remaining installments. He sold the said house to respondent No.1 by holding out that he has repaid the entire housing loan of the bank and the property is free from all encumbrances. Relying on the statement of petitioner, respondent No.1 purchased the property for sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash in presence of Nathu Lal, Raju, Ram Ratan, Chittar Lal and Banwari. An agreement to sell was executed between plaintiff and defendant and defendant-petitioner handed over all the documents of the property to plaintiff-respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 always remained willing and ready for getting the sale-deed executed but it was not executed by the petitioner. It was thereafter that plaintiff-respondent No.1 came to know that defendant-petitioner has not repaid the loan and has got agreement to sell executed by concealing this fact. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 sent a legal notice to the defendant-petitioner on 4/1/2003. It was further pleaded in the plaint that respondent No.1 is a bona-fide purchaser for sale consideration aforesaid and there is every possibility that respondents No.2 and 3 - banks will recover the outstanding amount of the housing loan against petitioner by attaching and selling the aforesaid property. Plaintiff served a notice on 16/4/2003 to respondent No.2-bank mentioning therein that defendant has given Account No.147A of respondent No.3 - Canara Bank in the name of Priyanka Wood Works, of which he is proprietor having balance of Rs. 4,00,000/- in that account. He had a plot near Khade Ganesh Ji in Kota, pakka house in village Naya Nohara and another plot in Borekhera, Kota and respondent No.2 may satisfy those demands from such properties. Respondent No.2-bank however did not recover the amount from the aforesaid properties of the petitioner but sent the officers on 5/8/2003 threatening plaintiff-respondent No.1 either to deposit the outstanding amount or ask the defendant-petitioner to deposit the same. Defendant-petitioner requested the plaintiff-respondent to execute the sale-deed but he declined to do so on the ground that he is in judicial custody. Prayer therefore was made that the decree for specific performance of the agreement be passed against the defendant-petitioner and the respondent-banks be restrained by way permanent injunction from attaching and auctioning the aforesaid house.

3. Defendant-petitioner submitted written statement pleading therein that since he was also in judicial custody therefore delay occurred in filing counter claim. It was further pleaded that he did not agree to sale the said house to the plaintiff. He could not have done so because those properties were hypotheticated with respondent No.2 - Oriental Bank of Commerce. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 stood guarantor of petitioner in the housing loan. Plaintiff requested defendant to sign some stamp papers for guarantee in another matter. Defendant believing him signed some blank stamp papers on which forged agreement to sell was prepared by the plaintiff. According to the market value, the house has value of Rs. 20,00,000/- lacs on which Oriental Bank of Commerce advanced housing loan as well as overdraft relief of Rs. 2,00,000/-. When petitioner got registry of the h















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top