GURRAM ALLABAKSH Vs. SHAIK HABEEBULLABASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed O.S.No.15 of 2008 against the petitioners in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, for the relief of declaration to the effect that the 1st respondent is the absolute owner of item No.1 and respondents 2 to 10 are the owners of item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Relief of perpetual injunction is also prayed for. The trial of the suit commenced and it is said to be at the stage of arguments.

(2.) The petitioners filed I.A.No.358 of 2010 under Rule 17 of Order XVI C.P.C., with a prayer to permit them to amend the common written statement. They wanted to incorporate the plea as to the maintainability of the suit, on the ground of mis-joinder of causes of action, and to make a counter-claim. The respondents opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 06.07.2010. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the causes of action for respondent No.1, on the one hand, and respondent Nos.2 to 10, on the other, are separate and specific and there was no basis for them to claim such independent reliefs in one and the same suit. He further submits that the suit is hit by Order II C.P.C. Another contention of the learned counsel is that there is no clear bar as such for the defendants in a suit to make counter-claim at a stage after the written statement is filed. Placing reliance upon certain decided cases, learned counsel contends that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.