MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dtd. 24/5/2024 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Katni, whereby the trial Court has rejected the petitioner's application preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.'].

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for eviction so also for recovery of arrears of rent under the provisions of Sec. 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961']. Though the defendant/petitioner had filed written statement on 15/9/2019, but thereafter on 8/12/2021, he had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking permission to file a counterclaim in respect of recovery of an amount of Rs.22,00,000.00 which he had spent over the renovation of rented premises, and therefore, he had claimed that not only the amount of arrears of rent be adjusted in the same, but the remaining amount be also paid to him. In turn, the trial Court has rejected the application saying that the counterclaim is barred by time as it could have been filed as per the limitation prescribed under Order 8 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. that too at the time of filing of written statement. According to the trial Court, it is a suit for recovery of amount and Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. very clearly provides a period of 90 days for filing the written statement from the date of serving the notice of plaint, therefore, the counterclaim filed by the defendant, according to the trial Court, was held to be barred by time.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though limitation for set-off has been prescribed under Order 8 Rule 6 of the C.P.C., but no limitation for filing a counterclaim is prescribed under Rule 6(a). He has also submitted that even otherwise for filing a counterclaim, the limitation starts from the date of filing the suit because in the written statement filed by the respondent, he has very specifically pleaded about the amount spent over the renovation of rented premises and, therefore, the cause of action as has been shown for filing the counterclaim starts from the date of filing the suit i.e.12/10/2018 and even otherwise, the limitation for filing the suit of recovery is three years, the counterclaim was well within the limitation and as such, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set-aside.