Back
Allahbad High Court
SATISHCHANDRA, C.J.
Vishwanath Lohia - Appellant
Versus
The Allahabad Bank - Respondent
Decided On : 08/04/1978
"There is a written statement but defendant has also preferred his counter claim. There is no court-fee on the counter claim. Hence the counter claim is rejected. Let it be treated as written statement only."
2. Aggrieved, the defendant has come to this Court in revision. O.VIII, R.6-A permits a defendant to plead counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff. Sub-rule (2) provides that such counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgement in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter claim. Under sub-r.(3), the plaintiff is entitled to file a written statement to the counter claim. Order XXXIII R.1 of the Civil P.C. provides that any suit may be instituted by an indigent person. Since in view of Rule 6-A(2) a counter claim has been given the same effect as a cross suit, the legal position is that when the defendant filed a written statement making a counter claim he filed a cross suit and so he is well within the purview of O.XXXIII. The defendant was hence entitled to apply for leave under that provision. The court below was bound to consider that application and dispose it of according to law. In failing to do so he had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.
3. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated May 26, 1976 is set aside. The court below is directed to dispose of the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis in accordance with law.
Revision allowed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
