Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting gross errors; amendments post-trial are impermissible unless necessary to resolve issues, safeguarding respondent rights.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court to assail the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 rejecting the application for amendment of plaint filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as well as an application seeking leave to file written statement to the counter claim of the respondent nos.1 and 2 under Order VIII Rule 6 A (3) read with section 151 of the CPC.

2. Heard Mr. T.B. Thapa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned Senior Counsel took this court to the impugned order as well as the provisions of law involved and submitted that this is a fit case in which the supervisory jurisdiction of this court ought to be invoked to render justice to the petitioner who suffers the consequence of the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 28.01.2022 in M/s. CSCO LLC vs. M/s. Lakshmi Sarawathi Spintex Limited & Ors. MANU/TN/4089/2022 in Application No. 4791 of 2021 in C.S. No. 697 of 2017.

3. In CSCO LLC (supra) the High Court of Judicature at Madras held that when it comes to filing a written statement for a counter claim, the same is specifically dealt with under Order VIII Rule 6 A (3) CPC. In such cases, the duty has been cast upon the court to fix the time limit. While fixing such time limits, the court is guided by Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC, wherein the court can fix a time limit of not more than 30 days for presenting the written statement for a counter claim. Even though leave is not required for filing a written statement for the counter claim, since it is a matter of right for the plaintiffs, the court can always fix a time limit for filing such a written statement. Hence, when a counter claim is filed by the defendants, the court has to specifically pass an order while taking the counter claim on file, directing summons to be served on the plaintiffs or if the plaintiff is represented by a counsel, directing the counsel to accept service of summons on behalf of the plaintiff. The time limit for filing a written statement for the counter claim will commence only thereafter.

4. The issue before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CSCO LLC (supra) was whether it should condone the delay of 563 days in filing the written statement of the plaintiff for the counter claim filed by the defendants. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this court is however different.

5. Before this court determines the issue involved in the present petition it may be pertinent to mention a few fact for clarity. The present petition arises out of a proceeding pursuant to the order passed by this court dated 12.04.2022 in RFA No 09 of 2020 preferred by the respondents against the judgment dated 24.12.2019 rendered by the learned District Judge in Title Suit No. 02 of 2017. While examining the appeal this court thought it fit to invoke the provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC and framed three additional issues for examination. It was directed that the learned District Judge shall examine the additional issues in terms of Order XLI Rue 25 CPC, conduct a trial to ascertain the issues, take additional evidence, if required, and return the evidence to this court together with its finding thereof and the reasons thereof within a period of six months from the date of the first appearance of the