RAMCHARAN SUKHLAL Vs. DAULAT MUNNIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 28-3-1995 passed by the Tenth Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, whereby the amendment application moved by the respondent was allowed.

(2.) BRIEFLY narrated the facts are that a suit was filed by the petitioner for eviction of the defendant from the accommodation in dispute on the ground of Section 12 (l) (a), 12 (l) (b), 12 (l) (e), 12 (l) (i) and 12 (l) (k) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The defendant contested the claim and filed written statement. The case proceeded. The Court fixed 19-9-1994 as last date for producing the defendant's evidence but the defendant examined himself on 24-9-1994. Again the Court gave one more chance to produce only one witness fixing 9-11-1994. On that date instead of examining the witness an application under Order 18, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code was moved which was allowed and the case was fixed on 9-12-1994. On that date an application under Order 6, Rule 17 and another under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code were moved. The learned trial Court allowed the amendment application introducing counter claim by the impugned order. Hence this petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the application moved by the defendant-respondent for amendment of written statement consisted of two parts. Through this amendment the defendant sought to make certain averments in his written statement. In para 1 new facts had been alleged relating to a cause of action with respect to a relief of physical possession. The amendment sought in paras 2, 3 and 4 relating to subsequent event and certain other facts. In para 5 the amendment sought related to the relief of injunction and possession. He urged that the amendment prayed in paras 1 and 5 by the defendant could not be allowed as it amounts to a fresh cause of action. The learned Counsel referred to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 6a, Civil Procedure Code and urged that counter-claim can be permitted if it is in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. The contention is that these two paragraphs relate to a fresh cause of action which accrued after the filing of the written statement and as such it could not be permitted. The Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing it.