NARAN @ NARAYAN BEHERA Vs. HAREKRUSHNA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 1138 of 2009-I involving allowing an application for amendment of written statement as well as introduction of a counter claim at the instance of the defendants.

(2.) Factual scenario as available from the records appended thereto and the pleadings of the parties, it appears the petitioner-plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 1158 of 2009-I, a suit for partition along with related decrees on 23.11.2009. Consequent upon notice, the defendants filed written statement on 18.05.2010. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. along with introduction of counter claim was filed by the defendants on 08.02011. The plaintiffs as opposite parties in their objection resisting the Order 6, Rule 17 of C PC. application along with the counter claim, contended that on introducing such application the defendants have not only attempted to bring new facts which were already within their knowledge, but in the process the defendants are also attempting to bring completely new issues with clear intention to delay the trial involving the suit and accepting such application may result in depriving the plaintiffs from their relief. It is also contended that the counterclaim also involves new cause of action which may be irrelevant for the purpose of decision in the suit. On hearing the submission of both the sides, the trial Court by the impugned order allowed the written statement as well as the counter claim at the instance of the defendants resultantly giving rise the present writ petition. Shri Prusty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners on reiteration of all the above further referring to the provisions at Order 8, Rule 6-A of C. P. C. submitted that there is no judicious application of mind on considering such issue by the trial Court and unless the impugned order is interfered and set aside, it will get a bad precedent.

(3.) Shri Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party Nos.1 and 2 while supporting the impugned order, referring to a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chandra Bhatia, reported in 2018 (1) OLR (SC) 278, contended that for the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court, the only question remains to be decided is to compensate the parties likely to be affected by way of cost.