RANJIT SINGH Vs. KARTARA RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated March 13, 1985, whereby the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff for permission to file the written statement to the claim of set off pleaded by the defendant was declined.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 65,452/-. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, counter-claim and set off were pleaded. The plaintiff was called upon to file replication. In spite of many adjournments, the replication was not filed by the plaintiff. On February 8, 1985, the learned counsel for the plaintiff stated at the Bar that the replication is not to be filed. Consequently, the trial Court framed the issues on that day and adjourned the case for the plaintiff's evidence on April 24, 1985. Meanwhile,the plaintiff moved an application dated March 5, 1985, for permission to file the written statement to the counter-claim and set off pleaded by the dependents in the written statement which prayer was declined by the trial Court by the impugned order.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the provisions of Order 8, rules 6-A to 6-G which were inserted by way of amendment in the Civil Procedure Code in the year 1976 were not brought to the notice of the Court by either of the party. Clause (3) of rule 6-A provides that the plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. Clause (4) further provides that the counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. Rule 6-G provides that the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim. Thus reading these provisions it is quite evident that the plaintiff was entitled to file the written statement in answer to the counter-claim.