AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—In the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for declaration, the respondents/defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking amendment of the written statement and a counter claim vas also made by the respondent/defendant No. 1 at the stags of evidence of the plaintiff. The Trial Court allowed the said application. Hence, this petition.
Though the respondents are served, they have remained absent. In the circumstances, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. B.M. Siddappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. He contends that once a written statement is filed, a counter claim would not be allowed under Order 8 Rule 6A of CPC.
On hearing, I am of the considered view that in terms of Order 8 Rule 6 of C.P.C, a defendant may set up, a counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such a counter claim is in the nature of a claim fox damages or not, provided that such a counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the court. In the present case, the written statement has been filed as far back as on 8.3.2007 by the defendant No. 1. Thereafter, the present application has been filed to set up a counter claim. Hence, it is clearly barred in terms of Order 8 Rule 6 of CPC. The Trial Court has failed to consider the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6 of C.P.C., while allowing the counter claim of the defendants.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Challakere in O.S. No. 198/2006 is set aside. I.A.3 filed by the respondents is rejected. Rule made absolute.
Petition disposed off accordingly.