SOU GAYABAI Vs. GOVIND RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent, heard forthwith.

(2.) THE application of the original defendant for amendment so as to introduce counter-claim in her written statement came to be rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the cause of action for the counter-claim proposed to be made by the applicant/defendant no. 2 is different than the cause of action shown by the plaintiffs and, therefore, such amendment cannot be allowed. The Court has relied upon a decision in the case of Sahebrao vithoba Pawar v. Bapurao Ravaji Pawar.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no legal impediment in filing a counter-claim on a different cause of action and, therefore, the learned Trial court fell in error in rejecting the application. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant no. 1 contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is merely for injunction and the defendant cannot be permitted to agitate the issue of maintenance by filing a counter-claim. Mr,. Parchure drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurubachan Singh v. Bhikasingh, where the Court held that in a suit for injunction, counter-claim for possession by the defendant, is maintainable, and submitted that a counter-claim based on different cause of action can be permitted.