Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bollepanda P. Poonacha & Anr vs K.M. Madapa on 13 March, 2008
In the case Bollepanda
(supra), the amendment application was filed in the written
statement, after the delivery of the defence for incorporating the
claim, which is expressly barred by Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code.
The ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case does
not squarely cover the facts of this case.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar Kalra vs Wing Cdr Surendra Agnihotri on 19 November, 2019
8. In Paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the whole purpose of the procedural
law is to ensure that the legal process is made more effective in
the process of delivering substantial justice. Particularly, the
purpose of introducing Rule 6-A in Order 8 of the Code is to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings by driving the parties to file
separate suit and see that the dispute between the parties is
decided finally. If the provision is interpreted in such a way, to
allow delayed filing of counterclaim, the provision itself become
redundant and the purpose for which the amendment is made
will be defeated and ultimately it leads to flagrant miscarriage of
justice. At the same time, the Supreme Court further held that
7
there cannot be a rigid and hyper-technical approach that the
provision stipulates that the counterclaim has to be filed along
with the written statement and beyond that, the Court has no
power. The Supreme Court further held, taking into
consideration, the reasons stated in support of the counterclaim,
should adopt a balanced approach keeping in mind the object
behind the amendment and to sub-serve the ends of justice. There
cannot be any hard and fast rule to say that in a particular time,
the counterclaim has to be filed, by curtailing the discretion
conferred on the court. The Trial Court has to exercise the
discretion judiciously and come to a definite conclusion that by
allowing the counterclaim, no prejudice is caused to the opposite
party, process is not unduly delayed and the same is in the best
interest of justice and as per the objects sought to be achieved
through the amendment. But however, the Supreme Court
further held that they are of the considered opinion that the
defendant cannot be permitted to file counterclaim after the
issues are framed and after the suit has proceeded substantially.
It would defeat the cause of justice and be detrimental to the
principle of speedy justice as enshrined in the objects and reasons
for the particular amendment to the Code.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Ganu S/O Kisna Buradkar vs Manik S/O Kisna Buradkar And Anr. on 22 January, 2003
After discussing of the various
precedents like the case of "Sudhir Kumar Wadhwa v. 4th
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur and other,
(1996) 28 ALR 209", the judgment of the Bombay High Court in
"Ganu v. Manik and another, 2003 SCC online Bombay 80" and
after taking into consideration, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6-A
of the Code, the Single Bench of Allahabad High Court has held
as follows:-
1