SRIKANTH SPINNERS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Siddipet in O.S..No. 44 of 1989 regarding I.A.No. 412 of 1992. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even when the matter was taken up yesterday, there was no such representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned advocate for the respondent has been heard and the matter is being disposed of on merits.

(3.) The plaintiff is a Bank. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 14,70,000/-. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds by filing written statement on 26-6-1991. Issues were also framed on 6-1 -1992 and when the matter was set down for recording the evidence during trial, the defendant filed I.A.No. 412 of 1992 under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the written statement by setting up a counter claim. The . basis for this appears to be that there was a fire accident subsequent to the filing of the written statement because of, which the defendant sustained a loss of Rs. 45,70,000/- regarding which no insurance was taken by the Bank in connection with the loan transaction. Therefore, the defendant thought of setting up a counter claim for recovery of Rs. 45,70,000/-. The application was resisted by the plaintiff. The , Subordinate Judge after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that having due regard to the legal implications, the defendant could not be permitted to set up such a counter claim after filing the written statement. Consequently I.A.No. 412 of 1992 came to be dismissed.