PREM NARAYAN Vs. RAM VILASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the defendant whose two applications, one for making a counter-claim under Order 8, Rule 6-A, C.P.C., and the other for amendment of the written statement for incorporating set-off under Orders 8, Rule 6, C.P.C. have been rejected by the trial Court.

(2.) It is not disputed that the non-applicant/plaintiff's suit is one for declaration of his title to certain property and also for an injunction, restraining the applicant from interfering with the non-applicant's possession over that property. The defendant-applicant filed a written statement, contesting the non-applicant's claim. After filing of the written statement and when some proceedings in the suit took place, the defendant-applicant made these two applications. While rejecting the first application for raising a counter-claim, the lower Court has observed that since the applicant has already filed a written statement, the counter-claim cannot be entertained. In my opinion, in taking such a view, the trial Court committed an error in not appreciating the correct import of provisions contained in Order 8, Rule 6-A, C.P.C. It will be useful to quote the provision of that Rule. It reads as follows :-

(3.) In the instant case, the written statement was filed on 16-1-1987, while the counter-claim was filed on 16-10-1989. However, the cause of action was stated to have accrued on 14-10-1988 and thereafter, i.e. apparently after the filing of the written statement. That being the position, the counter-claim could not have been entertained because the cause of action for that counter-claim arose after the filing of the written statement.