C RAMESH CHANDER Vs. C A HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in I.A. No.1271/1998 in O.S. No.508/1997 which was filed under Order VIIIRule9C.P.C.prayingtopermitthedefendant to file counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C.

(2.) Defendantis the revision petitioner herein. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the revision petitioner for perpetual injunction restraining him from interfering with his constructions and pending the suit, an interim injunction was also granted in favour of the respondent in June, 1997. Subsequently, the defendant filed his written statement on 4-8-1997 and issues were also framed. While so, on 21-7-1998, the present application is filed by the petitioner contending that under the guise of the said interim injunction, the respondent-plaintiff raised further constructions in the suit premises encroaching into the site of the petitioner and on the basis of this subsequent development, the petitioner put forth a counter claim against the plaintiff and sought for a mandatory injunction against him for demolition of the alleged illegal structures over the suit schedule properties and in open site by the plaintiff. The Court below, however, dismissed the said application observing that under Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C., counter-claim shall be put forward before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner attacked the said finding of the Courtbelow, placing strong reliance upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in Jag Mohan Chawla vs. Dere Radha Swami Satsang and Shanti Rani Das vs. Dinesh Chander Dey, contending that the defendant can file counter claim even after the presentation of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C.