JOHN GEORGE Vs. KORAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A counter claim set up by the defendant in a suit for injunction long after the filing of the written statement was declined to be entertained by the learned Munsiff, Taliparamba for the reason it was not accompanied by any petition for acceptance. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached by the defendant in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Petitioner is the first defendant in OS No. 215/07 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Taliparamba wherein he had filed the counter claim referred to earlier. The respondents in the petition are the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in the suit. Admittedly, the suit was filed as early in June, 2007 and the petitioner / first defendant filed his written statement in August, 2007. The counter claim moved by him giving rise to this Writ Petition was presented before the Court only on 04/06/08. True, the rejection of the counter claim by the learned Munsiff for the reason that a petition for leave to receive the counter claim was not filed is not appealing since it is only a curable irregularity, for which an opportunity could have been extended. However, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner at length and also the learned counsel for the respondents, I find, the rejection of the counter claim does not call for any interference by this Court. Relying on Sugesan & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., AIR 2004 A.P. 428, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a counter claim has to be treated as a cross suit and it can be filed even after filing of the written statement in the suit. No doubt, a counter claim can be filed after filing of the written statement, but, subject to the interdiction placed under O.8 R.6A CPC. sub-s.(1) of O.8 R.6A CPC reads thus: