A NANDAGOPALA KRISHNAN Vs. ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Plaintiff in OS.NO.286/2009 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli against the acceptance of the counter claim made by the Defendant by way of Additional Written Statement by order dated 11.01.2012 made in IA.No.1035/2011.

(2.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of Os.NO.286/2009, a suit filed by the Petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 26.12.2008 from the Defendant.

(3.) MR.S.Mani, the learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contended that the counter claim cannot be allowed after the commencement of trial and the amendment sought for to incorporate a counter claim cannot be entertained. He would contend that if the Defendant is permitted to raise a counter claim at a belated stage i.e. after recording of evidence commenced, then it will delay the disposal of the case and the Plaintiff will put to irreparable injury and loss. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in 2003-2-MLJ-56 (Southern Ancillaries Private Limited by its Managing Director Vs. Southern Alloy Foundries Private Limited by its Managing Director) in support of his contention that though the Defendant can be permitted to raise a counter claim even after filing the Written Statement, but that should be before the commencement of recording of evidence.