RAGHAVENDRA RAOJI KATHAWATE Vs. YALGURAD RAMCHANDRA PADKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Judge here has reversed the decree of the learned Judge of trial, because in the District Judge s view of the question of law it was not open to the defendant to urge by way of set off the claim which he did urge, that is to say, the claim that the amount of pay due to him by the plaintiff should be reckoned against the sum due to the plaintiff by him on the accounts. THE District Judge s view was that the plaintiff and the defendant did not till the same character in regard to the attempted set-off as they tilled in the suit and therefore Rule 6 of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code could not be applied., But looking to the illustrations of this rule and in particular comparing illustrations (a) and (b) with illustration (e), it appears to us that the District Judge has misunderstood the provisions of the law. It is quite true to say that in regard to the plaintiffs suit the plaintiffs claim is based upon an account for goods supplied, whereas the claim attempted to be made by way of set off is in regard to wages due. But in regard to both these claims the capacity of the parties is not varied. THE capacity in both the cases is nothing but the personal capacity, the claims being based upon a money demand. We make the rule absolute, set aside the District Judge s decree and remand the appeal to the District Judge to be decided on the merits. All that we have here decided is that under Order VIII, Rule 6, it is competent to the defendant to urge by way of set-off the claim which he seeks so to urge. Costs in the appeal.