KAMMA BAI Vs. GULAB BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short controversy involved in this petition relates to sustainability of the order passed by the Trial Court on 2/1/2013 in Civil Suit No. 91 -A/2011.

(2.) FACTS necessary for disposal of this petition are in narrow compass. Plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Defendant no. 6 after filing written statement filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. Trial Court has turned down the aforesaid amendment on the premise that the claim made in the counter claim is qua co -defendants and, therefore, said amendment is not maintainable in the light of Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC. Counter claim is maintainable only against the relief claimed by the plaintiff. On the aforesaid reasonings, the Trial Court has non -suited defendant no. 6 in the matter of her counter claim.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondents no. 2 to 5 does not dispute the aforesaid proposition based upon the aforesaid judgment in the matter of Rohit Singh (supra), however, submits that in fact the factual matrix of the case in hand is clearly distinguishable to the set of facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that even otherwise a careful perusal of the judgment, makes it clear that the same cannot be said to have any assistance to the petitioner.