Back
SANJAY DWIVEDI
Manoj Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar Gupta – Respondent
ORDER
1. By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 24.5.2024 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Katni, whereby the trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s application preferred under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’].
2. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for eviction so also for recovery of arrears of rent under the provisions of section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’]. Though the defendant/petitioner had filed written statement on 15.9.2019, but thereafter on 8.12.2021, he had filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking permission to file a counterclaim in respect of recovery of an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- which he had spent over the renovation of rented premises, and therefore, he had claimed that not only the amount of arrears of rent be adjusted in the same, but the remaining amount be also paid to him. In turn, the trial Court has rejected the application saying that the counterclaim is barred by time as it co
The judgment establishes that counterclaims can be accepted based on when the defendant gains knowledge of the relevant facts, emphasizing that procedural rules should not obstruct justice.
A counter claim must be filed within the limitation period applicable to plaints, and failure to do so results in rejection of the claim.
Counter-claims must arise before the defendant delivers their defense; otherwise, they are barred by limitation under the Code of Civil Procedure.
A counter-claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case.
The court confirmed a counter claim must be filed within the stipulated limitation, treating it akin to a plaint, and dismissed the appeal as the claim was time-barred.
When court had no discretion to disobey mandate of law namely, Section 3(i) r/w 3(2)(b)(ii) of Limitation Act, 1963, and therefore, it could not have granted leave to make a Counterclaim by amending ....
Counter claims must be filed before the settlement of issues in a trial stage; filing after issues are settled is not maintainable.
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
