BIRAJA SANKAR MISHRA Vs. UMA MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A counter -claim filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order 8, Rule 6A(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure having been rejected by order dated 12 -4 -2004 by the Civil Judge (SD), Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 16 of 1987, invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the said Defendant has approached this Court.

(2.) THE aforesaid O.S.No.16 of 1987 was filed by the present Opposite parties 1 to 4 on 17 -1 -1987 inter alia praying: (a) For possession of their respective purchased areas as shown in the schedule be confirmed and if during the pendency of the suit the Plaintiffs are found to be dispossessed their possession be recovered through Court. (b) For restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 permanently from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs. (c) For costs and other ancillary reliefs.

(3.) THE Learned Trial Court relying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Oriental Ceramic Products Ltd. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation reported in AIR 2000 Cal.17, held that Article 113 of the Limitation Act would also apply to a counterclaim, and as in the present case the counter -claim had been filed much beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the same was grossly barred by time and could not be accepted.