MADANAPALLE MUNICIPALITY Vs. SYED AHAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order, dated 2-11-2001 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle in I.A. No. 847 of 2000 in O.S.No. 32 of 1999.

(2.) The petitioner is the 7th defendant in O.S.No.32 of 1999. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said suit for declaration of title and other connected reliefs. The defendants including defendant No. 7, who is the petitioner herein, filed their written statements. When evidence was to commence, the petitioner herein, who is the 7th defendant, filed an application in I.A.No.847 of 2000 under Order VIII Rules 1, 6 and 9 CPC seeking to receive additional written statement in which the plea of declaration of title as a counter claim was raised, by condoning certain delay. The said application was resisted by the respondents herein and the Court below dismissed the application by order dated 2-11-2001, against which the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner- Madanpalle Municipality, represented by its Commissioner.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner Madanapalle Municipality submits that the order passed by the lower Court is erroneous and contrary to law and that it is always open to the defendant to make a counter claim even after filing of the written statement. In support of his contention the learned Standing Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendrakumar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and the decisions of this Court in Kommu China Saidaiah and another v. Jallela Gangamma and another and in K. Ramachandra Rao v. P. Narayan.