PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMANTARAY Vs. SMT. RANJITA SAMANTARAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point in this Civil Revision by the Defendant is the material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial court in refusing the prayer for amendment of the written statement by incorporating therein the counter claim.

(2.) MR . P.V. Ramdas, the learned Counsel for the Defendant -Petitioner submitted that the decision, reported in Kasi Biswanath Dev v. Paramananda Routrai and Ors. : A.I.R. 1985 Ori 260, requires reconsideration, in view of the decision reported in Mahendra Jung Rana v. Pan Singh Nagi, 1980 ALJ 319.

(3.) THE time for filing a written statement is limited in the summons issued to the Defendant. Where a Defendant is not able to file the written statement within the time limit, in the summons, he seeks for adjournment and the time limit is extended by the Court. When a new specific right is created which was not available earlier, the provision is to be rigidly construed and the general principle of liberal permission to amend the written statement should not be attracted which would defeat the very object of Rule 6 -A as is clear from the language itself. In view of what I have stated, the decision of this Court does not require any reconsideration.