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

2018 Supreme(Raj) 1273

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
NIROTTAM SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
RAMKISHORE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Anita Agarwal, Bipin Gupta, Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

The short question involved in the present petition is whether on consideration of facts & circumstances, where the Court does not grant time to the plaintiff to file reply to the counter claim, can a prayer be made by the plaintiff for filing reply or not? and can such a prayer subsequently be rejected on the ground of delay in making such a prayer.

2. Facts of the case reveal that a suit was filed for permanent injunction to which written statement was filed on 5.2.2014. In the written statement itself, the defendant raised its counter claim and also deposited Court fees, thereto.

3. However, as has come out from the order sheets of the trial Court, the trial Court while taking on record the written statement, did not take note of the counter claim filed by the defendant nor it gave any time in terms to file reply to the plaintiff, in terms of order 8 Rule 6A(3). The suit proceeded with framing of issue and thereafter, it appears that the plaintiff thereafter engaged other counsel who on examination of the record found that the counter claim had not been taken on record, nor time to file reply had been granted by the Court below to the plaintiff.














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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top