IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in allowing a late written statement against a counter-claim, emphasizing that no fixed period was established for its submission.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The challenge in the Revision, filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “Code”), is to an order dated 24.12.2021, passed by learned IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 706 of 2003, “Vikram Agarwal Vs. Bank of Baroda and Others”, whereby, the written statement filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff against the counter-claim of the revisionist-defendant no.7 has been permitted to be filed and taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the present Revision.

2. The brief facts of the present case, which are necessary to notice for deciding the present Revision, are that in the original suit (O.S. No.706 of 2003), filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff for declaration, cancellation of the registered lease deed dated 03.10.2003/17.10.2003, partition and compensation, the revisionist-defendant no.7 filed his written statement with counter-claim against the plaintiff on 31.05.2004 seeking the relief of cancellation of the registered sale-deed dated 13.05.2003, which was kept on the record. The trial court, while deciding the issue no.11 on 02.01.2019, directed the revisionist-defendant no.7 to make good the deficiency in court fee to be paid on the counter-claim. The defendant no.7 paid the outstanding court fee on 30.01.2020.

3. It is not in dispute that the trial court never fixed any period in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6A of Order VIII of the Code to file written statement against the counter-claim of the defendant no.7. The written statement against the counter-claim was filed on 03.12.2021.

4. Heard Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel for revisionist and Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.1-plaintiff.

5. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, appearing for revisionist-defendant no.7, has contended that the revisionist-defendant no.7 had filed his counter-claim on 31.05.2004, whereas the respondent no.1-plaintiff has filed his written statement against the revisionist’s counter-claim on 03.12.2021 without assigning any sufficient reason for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. Therefore, the laxity and gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff in filing the written statement against the counter-claim should not have been condoned.

6. Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate, has relied upon sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 A, Rule 6 G of Order VIII of the Code and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in “Aditya Hotels (P) Limited Vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Limited and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 431”, “SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 210” and upon a judgment dated 24.09.2020, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.7061 of 2019, “Gunwantiben Kishorchandra Shan and Others Vs. Smt. Manjulaben Indukumar Ghiya”.

7. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, appearing for the respondent no.1-plaintiff, on the other hand, has argued that the revisionist-defendant no.7 filed his written statement with counter-claim on 31.05.2004 which was kept on the record of the original suit. On 02.01.2019, the trial court directed the revisionist-defendant no.7 to make good the deficiency in court fee to be paid on the counter-claim. The deficiency in counter-claim was removed on 30.01.2020.

8. The written statement was filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff against the counter-claim on 03.12.2021. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, argued that the trial court never fixed any period under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 A of Order VIII of the Code for the respondent no.1-plaintiff to file written statement against the counter-claim filed by the revisionist-defendant no.7. Therefore, the trial court has permitted the respondent no.1-plaintiff on 24.12.2021 to file the written statement against the counter-claim of the revisionist-defendant no.7, in which there is no illegality. The order dated 24.12.2021 i