Patna High Court
Jagdish Prasad Chowdhary vs Nirsu Singh And Ors. on 3 April, 1980
Equivalent citations: AIR1981PAT68, 1981(29)BLJR96, AIR 1981 (NOC) 68 (PAT), 1980 BBCJ 457, 1980 BLJR 585, (1980) BLJ 659, (1982) BLJ 652, (1980) PAT LJR 321, 1981 BLJR 96, 1981 BBCJ 60
Author: Lalit Mohan Sharma
Bench: Lalit Mohan Sharma
ORDER Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.
1. The Plaintiff has by this revision application challenged the order passed by the court below accepting the; additional written statement of the defendants and treating it as a counter claim under Rule 6A of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was filed as long back as in 1967 for declaration of the plaintiff's title and recovery of possession of the land. Summonses were issued to the defendants to appear and answer the claim by 30-6-1967 and the defendants appeared on 25-7-67 and filed written statement on 9-12-1967 and issues were framed. The hearing of the suit was also taken up in 1974, but could not be completed as the defendants filed a petition for permission to file a supplementary written statement. The matter ultimately came to this Court in revision and the further hearing consequently was delayed. Even after the disposal of the civil revision application, the hearing remained suspended for sometime as the defendants filed an application for transfer of the suit. However, ultimately, on 4-3-78, the defendants filed another petition for allowing them to file a second additional written statement making a counter claim on the allegation that they have been dispossessed by the plaintiff from a portion of a plot of land on 27-9-1977. In spite of objection, the Court has allowed the prayer. It may be staled here that the earlier additional written statement filed by the defendant was not in connection with the alleged cause of action mentioned in the present second additional written statement.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several points in support of this revision application, but it does not appear necessary to state or discuss them as the revision application has to be allowed on a simple ground mentioned below.
3. The Rule 6A of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been introduced in the Code by recent amendment and the Sub-rule (1) provides that a defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up, by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff any right or claim in respect of a cause of action according to the defendant against the plaintiff "either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired."
4. The words which are quoted in the preceding sentence from the rule are important and cannot be ignored. Any cause of action which may arise after the filing of the written statement by the defendants (or after expiry of the date for filing the defence) will not come within the sweep of the sub-rule. There is a very good reason for putting a limitation in this regard. If the right of the defendants was not restricted, then one counter claim after another could have been filed against the plaintiff any time before the suit was disposed of and thereby the disposal of the suit would have been under the risk of indefinite delay. As has been stated earlier, the written statement had been filed in 1967 and the new cause of action which is now being sought to be introduced by the defendants arose according to them in 1977. The hearing of the suit had started in 1974. In these circumstances the additional written statement could not have been accepted by Court as a counter claim under rule 6A.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, I hold that the court below acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity in passing the impugned order. The Civil revision application is, therefore, allowed, the order passed by the court below dated 24-6-1978 is set aside and the court below is directed to proceed with the further hearing of the suit expeditiously.