Back
2021 Supreme(Sikk) 128
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ.
Managing Director, Sikkim Power Development Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Senior Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Respondent
CRP No. 02/2021
Decided On : 20-08-2021
Mr. Sudhir Prasad, Advocate, for the Petitioner
A counter claim does not require specification of the cause of action under the CPC, and courts should respect the trial court's judgment unless a clear error of jurisdiction is present.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 and Order VIII Rule 6A - Revision against an order rejecting an application to reject a counter claim - Court found that the rejection was based on a proper examination of delay and questions of limitation, notable as mixed questions of law and fact, and that no error of jurisdiction occurred. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Court's Authority - The necessity of specifying the date of cause of action in a counter claim is established as not being dictated by the relevant rules. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff contended that the counter claim was improperly maintained due to the lack of specification of the cause of action, appealing against the rejection of its application under Order VII Rule 11.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order was deemed proper, not suffering from perversity or illegality.
Issues: The key questions included the specification of the cause of action in counter claims and whether the lower court erred in rejecting the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the trial court's reasoning regarding delay and limitation was sound, thus denying the interference in the revision petition.
Result: Revision petition dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT
Assailing the order dated 26.02.2021 rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short, ‘CPC’, this Revision is filed by the plaintiff to reject the counter claim and on rejection of the said application, this Revision has been preferred.
I have perused the order impugned, on perusal thereto, it is apparent that the Court assigned the reason in detail causing delay by the plaintiff and observing about the question of limitation, being mix question of law and fact, however, the application so filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant referring the contents of the application inter alia contended that the date of cause of action has not been specified, therefore, in terms of Order VIII Rule 6A clause (2) and (3) of the CPC, the order of rejection is not in accordance with law and the Court has committed error of jurisdiction warranting interference in this Revision.
After having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant at length and on perusal of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A clause (2) and (3) of the CPC, the Legislator has made it clear that what would be the effect of filing the counter claim and how it may be governed by the Court as per provisions of the Rules regarding. However, it is having nothing to do for specifying the cause of action filing a counter claim.
In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, the order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any perversity illegality much less an error of jurisdiction warranting interference in this Revision.
Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.
