GARIMA GOEL Vs. PANKAJ JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings from which the present petition arises, relate to a civil suit (registered at that point of time as Suit No.97/2014), instituted by the petitioner against the respondent seeking reliefs in the nature of perpetual injunction and cancellation of sale deed dated 01.05.2006. The respondent herein had filed the written statement in February, 2007 in answer to the said suit. In the written statement he had also come with a counter claim in exercise of the liberty granted by the provision contained in Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). For some inexplicable reasons, the counsel then engaged by the petitioner chose not to file a reply to the counter-claim while submitting a replication in answer to the written statement submitted in reply to the plaint and instead presented an application taking exception to the maintainability of the counter-claim, which was noted in the proceedings dated 20.03.2007 by the Civil Judge.

(2.) The objection to the maintainability of the counter-claim stood rejected by order dated 25.07.2007. Thereafter, neither the petitioner nor his counsel, nor the presiding Judge, remembered the need for a written statement to be submitted in answer to the counter-claim. The case kept hanging fire on several dates on some procedural issue or the other.

(3.) Eventually, in November, 2008, the respondent (the counter-claimant) submitted an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking liberty to amend the pleadings in the context of the counter-claim. The said application remained pending for almost three years. It was allowed on 14.09.2011.