RAJKARAN Vs. RAMRAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri N.C. Rajvanshi, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Surendra Tiwari and Shri Suresh Chandra Mishra for the petitioner and Shri Dharm Pal Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Y.N. Singh and Shri Abhishek Singh for the respondents.

(2.) A suit for permanent injunction was filed before the court below, wherein written statement was filed on 4/6.5.2013. Subsequently an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed on 20.11.2013, wherein a counter claim was also set up by the defendants. It is undisputed between the parties that the application for amendment was filed under Order 6 Rule 17. The trial court by means of order dated 25th August, 2014 allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, whereby the defendant was also allowed to comply with the requirements of counter claim. On feeling aggrieved the plaintiff challenged the order before the revisional court and by order dated 12.11.2014 the revisional court has also affirmed the order passed by the trial court. Both the orders passed by the courts below have given rise to the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contends that the cause of action disclosed in the amendment application is subsequent to the date of filing written statement and in any case the counter claim cannot be set up by the respondents-defendants after filing of the written statement for which the scope and limitations are well defined under Order 8 Rule 6A, which the trial court has wrongly applied. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has placed reliance upon Mahendra Jung Rana v. Pan Singh Nagi, 1980 AllLJ 319; Bollepanda P Poonacha v. K.M. Madapa, 2008 LawSuit(SC) 273 and Charan Singh v. Radhey Shyam Arora & Ors., 2014 122 RevDec 292.