RAMA CHANDRA MOHANTY Vs. BHUBAN BARIK & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Misc. Petition involves an order allowing amendment so also accepting the counter-claim to the written statement.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order, vide Annexure-1, Sri A.P.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the provision contained in Order 8 Rule 6-A of C.P.C. pleaded that for filing of the written statement on 18.2.2005 even though the amendment could be maintainable for the trial having not been commenced but no counter-claim in the year 2017 would have been entertained. Taking this Court to several documents, Sri Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner established that the suit was initiated in the year 2000, vide T.S. No.21/2000 and re-numbered as C.S. No.906/2010. Written statement was also filed within time frame on 18.2.2005, whereas an application for amendment along with a counter-claim appearing at Annexure-4 was also filed in the month of June, 2017. Referring to a decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya vrs. Anil Panjwani, 2003 AIR(SC) 2508 and other decision of this Court in Shrimati Basanti Jena vrs. Smt. Apani Bewa & others,2013 Supp2 OrissaLR 616, Sri Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the restrictions in the provision of Order 8 Rule 6-A of C.P.C. and the decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court as well as this Court referred to herein above, the impugned order remains unsustainable. Hence, Sri Bose requested this Court for interfering with the impugned order at Annexure-1 and setting aside the same.

(3.) Sri U.C.Mishra, learned counsel for O.Ps.1 & 2, while opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Vijay Prakash Jarath vrs. Tej Prakash Jarath, 2016 AIR(SC) 1304 submitted that the decision having the support of the claim of the O.Ps.1 & 2 thus has the support to the impugned order. Sri Mishra thus contended that there is no scope for interfering with the impugned order.