RAM PARKASH KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. SEHGAL WEAVING FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the defendants for permission to amend their written statement which was dismissed by the learned trial Sub Judge. This order is sought to be impugned in this revision petition. The plaintiff, M/s. Sehgal Weaving Factory filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,244.80 against the petitioners who are defendants in the suit. The written statement in the suit was filed on 15th January, 1976 in which a plea was taken by the defendants that the plaintiff had committed the breach of a contract under which they had agreed to sell to the defendants 17 Maunds of Ruffle Shawls at the rate of Rs. 74/- per seer through two instalments of ten and seven maunds respectively, the deliveries of which were to be made within three months from the date of execution of the aforesaid transaction which was effected on 10th November, 1972, and the defendants thus incurred a loss of Rs. 10,000/- due to non-performance of the contract and hence a separate suit was being filed by them. However, on 3rd March, 1976, an application was made by the petitioners for the amendment of the written statement which has been dismissed by the learned trial Sub Judge. In the amendment application a prayer was made that the written statement be allowed to be amended so that the defendants may put up a counter-claim for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as the loss incurred for the non-performance of the contract.

(2.) During the pendency of the application for amendment, Rule 6-A of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been added which is in the following terms :-

(3.) Before the said rule has been made applicable with effect from 1st February, 1977, it is, therefore, clear that when the application for amendment was made, this rule was not in existence, but before the learned Sub Judge decided the application on 11th March, 1977, the said rule was in operation. The said rule has been specifically made applicable to all pending suits. Moreover, it is well settled that all procedural laws are retrospective. In this connection reference may b e made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Anant Gopal Sheorey v. The State of Bombay, 1958 AIR(SC) 915. If the attention of the learned Sub Judge had been drawn to the provisions of Rule 6-A of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in all probability, the amendment of the written statement taking up the counter-claim by the defendants may not have been dis-allowed. In enacting Rule 6-A, the intention of the Legislature is clear that the parties should not be allowed to file separate suits but if one of the parties has initiated action in the Court, the defendant, who may have any counter-claim, may also agitate the same during the same proceedings and if the said counter-claim is agitated in the written statement filed in the suit of the plaintiff, the said counter-claim has thus to be decided on merits.