Chamela Ram vs Hukma and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 28th March, 1987, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 seeking permission for amendment of the written statement was allowed.

By way of amendment, the Defendants wanted to put forward counter claim seeking an injunction against the Plaintiff restraining him from interfering in their possession. The trial Court after considering the matter came to the conclusion that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 8 of the Code provide that any ground or defence which has arisen after the institution of the suit or the presentation of the written statement, claim set off or counter claim may be raised by the Defendants or the Plaintiff.

The only argument raised on behalf of the Plaintiff-Petitioner is that after having filed the written statement earlier he could not be permitted to put up a counter claim. He referred to Order 8 Rule 6-B of the Code in this behalf which provides that where any Defendant seeks to rely upon any ground as supporting a right of counter claim, he shall in his written statement, state specifically that he does so by way of counter-claim.

He also referred to Bank of Baroda, New Delhi v. Gurcharan Singh 1986 (1) PLR 46 to support his contention.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Order 8 Rule 8 of the Code provides that any ground on defence which has arisen after the institution of the suit or the presentation of the written statement, claim for set off or counter claim may be raised by the Defendants or the Plaintiffs, as the case may be, in his written statement. The purpose is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It was held by this Court in Ram Parkash Kewal Krishan and Anr. v. Sehgal Weaving factory 1980 PLJ 8 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. In this view of the matter I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as to be interferred with in this petition. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.