P.P. POONACHA S/O LATE P.P. PONNAPPA Vs. SHRI NACHIAPPAN S/O LATE RAMANATHAN AND SMT B.M. HONNAMMA W/O LATE B. MADHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER filed suit against Respondents on 22.4.06 to pass a decree of recovery of Plaint B schedule land from the Plaintiff, plaint C schedule land from the 2nd Defendant and for costs. Respondents who are the Defendants in the suit have filed written statement on 7.8.06. They also filed counter claim on 7.8.06. Reply to the counter claim was not filed. Issues were framed. At that stage, the Petitioner filed I.A.2 under O 8 R 6 (3) Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the Court to file the written statement to the counter claim. I.A.2 was filed on 24.3.10 to which, the Respondents filed statement of objections on 25.7.10. The Trial Court finding I.A.2 to be devoid of merit, has passed an order, dismissing the same. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff has filed this writ petition.

(2.) SRI B.M. Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, on account of not noticing of the counter claim separately filed, i.e., the counter claim being not part and parcel of the written statement, due to inadvertence, reply to the counter claim could not be filed within 90 days period and soon after noticing the lapse, which was bona fide, I.A.2 was filed along with the counter / reply to the counter claim i.e., on 24.3.10. Learned Counsel submits that, I.A.2 has not been considered in the correct perspective and the impugned order is irrational and illegal.

(3.) I have perused the writ petition papers.