PRAYER:- This Application had been filed to grant leave to the applicant to file written statement along with counter claim in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.29 of 2023, pending on the file of this Court.

ORDER

The present Application had been filed to grant leave to the applicant to file written statement along with counter claim in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.29 of 2023, pending on the file of this Court.

2.Heard Mr.K.Venkatasubban learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr.K.Chandrasekaran learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the respondent/plaintiff herein had initially filed a suit as against his father being shown as the sole defendant for recovery of monies due to the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the applicant's father, however as he died, the applicant was brought on record as legal heir of the deceased sole defendant by orders of this Court. After coming on record, when he had perused the written statement filed by his father certain pertinent aspects were found to have been missed which also give raise to a counter claim to the applicant, hence he had filed a further written statement along with counter claim, which arises out of supply of defective equipments and materials which had become necessitated and for which the applicant had not taken out an application for granting leave to file a written statement along with counter claim in the suit. He had also relied upon the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Prakash Jarath Vs Tej Prakash Jarath reported in (2016) 11 SCC 800, Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394 and a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in CRP No.2477 of 2018.

4. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the predecessor in interest of the applicant namely the original defendant, who is his father, had filed a written statement, had not made any counter claim. Issues were also framed in the suit and evidence was recorded on the side of the plaintiff, who was also cross examined. When the matter was to be taken up for recording of evidence on the side of the defendant, the sole defendant had died and thereafter, the applicant was impleaded as legal heir of the sole defendant. After coming on record in a suit which was pending trial, the applicant had now taken out an application for filing a further written statement along with the counter claim is wholly unsustainable. He would submit that the applicant was not added as the independent defendant, but he had only stepped into the shoes of his father, who was a sole defendant who had passed away, pending trial. Had the applicant been impleaded as a new defendant along with the earlier defendant, his claim to file written statement along with counter claim would survive but, the counter claim would also have to be within the period of limitation and cannot be beyond the period of limitation. He would submit that in the present case, even had the counter claim been made by the original defendant then, such a counter claim could have been said to be in time. But, the present attempt to make a counter claim that too in a suit that is pending trial after framing of issues is wholly barred and would rely upon the very same judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant reported in 2020 2 SCC 394 and also a further judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2025 INSC 1109. hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the application.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record before this Court.

6. In a suit that had been taken for trial and the evidence on the plaintiff's side had been recorded, the sole defendant had died and the applicant had been brought on record as the legal heir of the deceased sole defendant. It is the