Filing a counterclaim after issues are framed is not permitted as it contravenes procedural law.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Assandh, District Karnal, whereby the application of the petitioner to amend the written statement by filing the counter-claim in the main suit has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the respondent had filed a suit for possession by way of redemption and the petitioner had filed a written statement dated 24.08.2018 and in the said written statement had raised a plea of oral agreement to sell stated to have taken place on 25.05.2017. It is further submitted that the entire stand of the petitioner was mentioned in the written statement but inadvertently no counter-claim was filed, moreso, with respect to specific performance of the said oral agreement. It is stated that subsequently an application was filed on 04.02.2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to permit the applicant/defendant to amend the written statement by filing a counter-claim. It is further stated that the same has been illegally dismissed vide the impugned order. It is argued that the petitioner has already led his evidence and would not lead any further evidence in case the amendment is allowed and the petitioner be permitted to file the counter-claim on the basis of the plea taken in the written statement.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the present revision petition and has submitted that the application for amendment for filing the counter-claim has been filed after the issues have been framed and after the entire evidence of the plaintiff as well as the defendant has been led and was in fact filed at the stage of rebuttal evidence. It is further submitted that in such a situation, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file a counter claim. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as ' Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri and others ', reported as 2020(2) SCC 394 . It is stated that even the plea raised with respect to the oral agreement and the fact that out of Rs.25 lakhs, Rs.24 lakhs had been paid without getting the sale deed registered, is also baseless and unbelievable. It is argued that the impugned order has been rightly passed and deserves to be upheld.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to the upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed a suit for possession by way of redemption against the present petitioner on the plea that he had mortgaged the property in question on 27.12.2013 and a mortgage deed was executed on the said date vide vasika No.3405/1 and after the mortgage of the said property, the possession of the same was delivered to the defendant. It is further stated that it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner/defendant would vacate the shop in question after the receipt of Rs.2 lakhs on or before 30.09.2016 and that the mortgagee would hand over the possession of the shop in question to the mortgagor. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had approached the defendant and had made a request to vacate the premises after accepting the amount of Rs.2 lakhs i.e. mortgage money. The written statement dated 24.08.2018 was