MAHENDRA JUNG RANA Vs. PAN SINGH NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the dismissal of an application to amend the written statement. Learned, counsel pressed the amendment which sought to introduce a counter claim to the written statement. The amendment in respect of counter claim was rejected because the Defendant had not valued it and had not paid court-fees. Learned Counsel for the applicant rightly points out that the court-fee could be paid on the counter claim after it has been permitted to be added to the written statement. The valuation could have also been given by way of modification of the amendment application if the court had granted an opportunity for it. The Defendant was entitled to put in a counter claim and so the application for amendment in this respect ought to have been allowed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the opposite party invited my attention to Rule 6-A of Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure . It provides as:

(3.) Learned Counsel submitted that a counter-claim can be added to a written statement only if it is either filed before the Defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence. In the present case the Defendant had already filed a written statement and therefore, the prayer for adding a counter-claim was barred. I am unable to agree. Under Clause (1) of Rule 6-A, the time limit is in respect of the cause of action. The cause of action for the counterclaim should accrue to the Defendant either before or after the filing of the suit but before the Defendant has delivered his defence or before the time for delivering his defence has expired. The limitation of time is clearly in respect of the cause of action on which the counter-claim is based. The clause does not prescribe any time-limit for the making of the counter-claim.