Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Srikanth Spinners, Rep. By Its ... vs State Bank Of India, Toopran Branch Rep. ... on 1 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(3)ALT582, 1995 A I H C 1767, (1995) 2 BANKCAS 405, (1995) 1 CIVILCOURTC 207, (1995) 1 APLJ 185, (1995) 2 CIVLJ 601, (1997) 1 BANKLJ 367, (1995) 1 CURCC 176, (1996) 4 LANDLR 428, (1994) 2 LS 45, (1994) 3 ANDH LT 582, (1994) 2 BANKCLR 659
ORDER B.K. Somasekhara, J.
1. This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Siddipet in O.S.No. 44/89 regarding I.A.No. 412/92. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.
2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even when the matter was taken up yesterday, there was no such representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Advocate for the respondent has been heard and the matter is being disposed of on merits.
3. The plaintiff is a Bank. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 14,70,000/-. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds by filing written statement on 26-6-1991. Issues were also framed on 6-1-1992 and when the matter was set down for recording the evidence during trial, the defendant filed LA. No. 412/92 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement by setting up a counter-claim. The basis for this appears to be that there was a fire accident subsequent to the filing of the written statement because of which the defendant sustained a loss of Rs. 45,70,000/- regarding which no insurance was taken by the Bank in connection with the loan transaction. Therefore the defendant thought of setting up a counter-claim for recovery of Rs. 45,70,000/-. The application was resisted by the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that having due regard to the legal implications, the defendant could not be permitted to set up such a counter-claim after filing the written statement. Consequently I.A.No. 412/92 came to be dismissed.
4. The learned advocate Mr. K. Sridhar Rao, for the respondent has supported the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and has further contended that the defendant in the suit who is the petitioner in this case was totally prevented or prohibited by legal implications of Order 8 Rule 6-A of C.P.C. and therefore the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge should be sustained. There appears to be all force in his contention.
5. The learned Subordinate Judge while dealing with the matter has correctly come to the conclusion that the counter-claim set up by the defendant under the guise of seeking amendment to the written statement is totally inconsistent with the legal mandate under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC regarding which reliance was placed on two authoritative pronouncements in Kashi Biswanath Dev v. Paramananda Routrai, AIR 1985 Orissa 26., and Bank of Baroda v. Gurcharan Singh, . Both the rulings have declared the law in this regard authoritatively to the effect that in a suit filed for recovery of money counter claim cannot be set up after filing written statement particularly in the guise of amending the written statement. In Kashi Biswamlh Dev's case1 reliance has been placed on the rulings of the High Courts of Calcutta, Allahabad, Orissa and Madras Dega Films v. M/s. Lotus Productions, ., Vishwanath Lohia v. Allahabad Bank, ., Bhaskar Chandra Behera v. Ranital Rice Mill, Bansidhar Mahanty v. United Bank of India, and T.K.V. S. Vidyapoornachary v. M.R. Krishnamachari, .
6. On a careful examination of the legal implications arising out of Order 8 Rule 6-A C.P.C. and on going through the rulings supra, this Court has no reason to disagree with them. This Court respectfully agrees with such a legal principle laid down therein and reiterate that counter-claim cannot be set up by a defendant after filing the written statement and particularly in the guise of amending the written statement. The simple implication of such a provision appears to be that there must be expeditious disposal of all the controversies between the parties arising out of the same transaction and leading from the same cause of action. That the plaintiff should not be taken by surprise by the defendant and the defendant should think of setting up counter claim in answer to the palintiff's claim of recovery of money as part and parcel of the same transaction leading to the same cause of action. The learned Subordinate Judge having followed such a correct legal position has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner-defendant. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge to any extent, either on facts or law. There is no reason to interfere in this order.
7. The revision is therefore, dismissed with costs.