BENTALS CORPORATION LTD Vs. KAMLESH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the orders of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 28.4.2005 and 3.5.2005 whereby the learned Judge has, in his order, while disposing of a review, gone into details to show that the written statement filed by the petitioner cannot be termed as "counter-claim" and thereby dismissed the review petition.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that on a bare reading of the written statement, the background stated therein and the prayer made at ( c) together with the averments in paragraph (10), makes out a case of the petitioner by way of a counter-claim. He submits that the pleadings therein are sufficient and, therefore, ought to have been treated as a "counter-claim" and a plaint as such. Deficiency in court fee would have been made with under Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC. In support of his arguments, he relies upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Parvathamma v. K.R.Lokanath and others, AIR 1991 Karnataka 283.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the written statement cannot be treated as a counter-claim since nowhere has the claim been evaluated nor has any court fee been paid nor permission sought to pay the same. He also submits that no portion of the written statement can be bifurcated to bring about a plaint sufficient in requirements to maintain a suit. He also submits that in the event the written statement being treated as counter-claim, it has to comply with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC.