SAHADEB GHOSH Vs. SUCHETA BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioning plaintiff asserts that in view of Order VII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 a counter-claim may not be filed by way of amendment of the written statement after the written statement has already been delivered by the concerned defendant. The application for amendment of the written statement by incorporating a counter-claim was filed about a month after the written statement was lodged. The primary objection taken by the plaintiff, as evident from the written objection, was that a counter-claim could not be incorporated after the written statement had already been filed.

(2.) The trial Court considered the propriety of the counter-claim and allowed the same without referring to the plaintiff's objection that a counter-claim could not be received after a written statement had already been filed.

(3.) In support of the petitioner's contention, a judgment (Shyamal Kumar Das v. Sanjoy Chowdhury, 2011 5 CalHN 115) is placed. The judgment noticed several precedents of the Supreme Court, including one reported at : (2003)7 SCC 350. The order impugned in Shyamal Kumar Das was the rejection of an application for reconsidering an order dismissing a prayer for a counter-claim to be brought on record. In the context of the order impugned, this Court had the occasion to discuss the extent of latitude available to the trial Court in receiving a counter-claim. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment noted above and recognised that a counter-claim could be made along with a written statement or by seeking amendment of the written statement or under Order VII Rule 9 of the Code.