Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Radheshyam Singhaal – Appellant
Versus
Bajranglal Agrawala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to possession rights in a suit. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on counterclaim timeliness. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial discretion and counterclaim rules. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's partial allowance of cmp. (Para 10) |
| 5. final decision on the cmp. (Para 11) |
Judgment :
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.P.Bose, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, and Mr. S.Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Party.
2. Present Opposite Party filed the suit in C.S. No. 36 of 2020 praying for a declaration of his right title interest over the suit property along with conformation of possession.
3. Present Petitioner, who is the Defendant in said suit appeared there on 8th July 2020 and filed his W.S. on 3rd August 2022 along with a petition praying to accept the same at the belated stage. The Trial Court vide order dated 1st March 2023 accepted the W.S. of the Defendant and accordingly settled the issue subsequently. After settlement of issue, awaiting the evidence from the side of the Plaintiff the Defendant filed a petition dated 5th February 2024 raising his counter-claim for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property based on an unregistered sale deed.
4. The pra
Counter-claims must be timely and justified; substantial delay without explanation can result in rejection, although courts retain discretion to evaluate circumstances.
(1) Counter-claim – Relief of specific performance cannot be set up by way of a counter-claim.(2) Counter-claim is treated as a cross-suit and is governed by rules applicable to plaints, including ob....
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.
The court has discretion under CPC provisions to allow extensions for filing replies to counter-claims, affirming flexibility over rigid limitations.
The court ruled that discretion is preserved in allowing plaintiffs to file written statements to counter-claims beyond the 90-day limit if permitted by the court.
A counterclaim must be raised before issue framing begins; late submissions risk disrupting judicial efficiency and violate procedural rules.
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.
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
