Karnataka High Court
M/S Classic Biotech And Exports Ltd vs M/S J K M Research Farm Ltd on 4 December, 2013
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.51307/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
M/s.Classic Biotech & Exports Ltd.,
No.133-B, Vengal Rao Nagar,
Hyderabad 560 038,
And also at Survey No.71/4,
Karim Sonnenahalli,
Kadanur Cross,
Doddaballapur Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District,
Rep.by its Managing director,
Sri.N.V.Prasada Raju,
Aged about 50 years. ... Petitioner
(By Sri.Vishwanath N, Adv)
AND:
M/s. J.K.M.Research Farm Ltd.,
(A company incorporated under
The Companies Act),
At Dyanamatic Park,
No.11, Peenya Industrial Area,
Tumkur Road,
Bangalore 560 052,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
And Power of Attorney Holder,
-2-
Holder Mr.Bhanusimha
Aged about 50 years. ... Respondent
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned
order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Doddaballapur on IA.No.14 in OS.No.190/2002 vide
Annex.E.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The defendant in OS.No.190/2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur, has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 22.10.2013 in dismissing his application, IA.14 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment to written statement. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to by their rank in the court below.
2. The suit in OS.No.190/2002 is filed seeking direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.26,89,606/- with further interest at 24% p.a., from the date of suit till date of realisation and for other consequential reliefs. Said suit is filed on -3- 11.10.1999, wherein summons are served on defendant in the year 2000 and thereafter, written statement is filed by defendant on 24.5.2000. It is stated that the said suit came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 19.10.2005 and subsequently restored in the year 2011. Thereafter, on 31.7.2013, application in IA.14 is filed seeking amendment to the written statement. In the said application, amendment is sought not only with reference to the pleadings, but also with reference to counter claim of Rs.30,00,000/- towards damages payable with interest at 24% pa., from the date of petition till date of realisation.
3. Admittedly, limitation for counter claim is three years from the date of service of summons, which is in the year 2000, in the instant case. Thereafter, the defendant filed a detailed written statement on 24.5.2000, wherein it is stated that liberty is sought to initiate proceedings against the plaintiff for recovery of excess amount collected by the plaintiff from the defendant as and by way of damages. Assuming for a moment, that defendant's liberty sought to file counter claim as on the date of filing of written statement i.e., 24.5.2000 is -4- allowed, limitation for counter claim would be three years from that date.
4. Though much has been stated regarding suit being dismissed in the year 2005 and subsequently restored in the year 2011, limitation of three years would expire much before the suit is dismissed in the year 2005, inasmuch as, even according to defendant, three years period of limitation would expire from the date of filing of written statement i.e., 24.5.2000. Hence, the finding of court below in dismissing the application filed by the defendant for the relief of amendment to written statement by relying on the judgment rendered by the Apex court in Revajeetu Builders, Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 and in Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 337, appears to be just and proper. Further, though learned Counsel for petitioner relies on the subsequent unreported judgment of Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Khan & Ors., -vs- The Peerless General Finance and Investment Co., Ltd., & Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos.6784/2013, on going through the same it is clear that the ratio laid down in -5- the aforesaid two judgments are neither specifically discussed nor rescinded therein, therefore, question of relying on the same does not arise. In that view of the matter, question of entertaining this writ petition to consider the correctness or otherwise of impugned order dated 22.10.2013 does not arise.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-