LexBOLLEPANDA P. POONACHA AND ANR. versus K.M. MADAPA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 4..S.C.R. 1011 x ... BOLLEPANDA P. POONACHA AND ANR. A II. K.M. MADAPA (Civil Appeal No. 1959 of 2008) MARCH 13, 2008 B [S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] >- ~ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 8, r. 6A - Counter claim - Filing of, when cause of action c arose after filing of written statement - Permissibility of- Held: Not permissible. O. 6 r. 17 -Amendment of written st.atement- Prayer for- Held: Cannot be allowed as a matter of right- In such matters, court has wide discretion - Howeve4' court to exercise D ~ discretionary jurisdiction in judicious manner - While • considering the application subservance of justice is . the ultimate goal - Grant of relief would depend upon the factual background involved in each case. In 1997, a suit was filed in respect of certain E properties. Respondent filed a written statement on 21.3.1997 contending that the said properties were purchased by him. On · 4.1.2006, on . the premise that the plaintiffs have dis-possessed the respondents in the year ~ · 1998, counter claim was filed. In the said counter claim, it F was contended that the land bearing Survey No. 61/1 had fallen to his share in a partition of the family properties in 1980 and 1986 and the remaining land was purchased by him in a public auction. In the application for amendment of the written statement, a prayer was made for passing a G decree of recovery of possession of the suit land. The- said application was allowed by the Civil Judge and ...... upheld by the High Court . In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that 1011 H I e 1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.. A filing of a counter claim where cause of action arose after i filing of the written statement is impermissible under Order 8 Rule GA CPC. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. Applications under Order 6, Rule 11 CPC ordinarily are required to be considered liberally. It is also not in dispute that amendment of written statement ~ deserves more liberal consideration than an application .. for amendment of plaint. Order 8 Rule 9 again, subject to c the statutory interdict enables a defendant to file additional pleadings. [Para 9] [1016-8, C] 1.2. A right to file counter claim is an additional right. It may be filed in respect of any right or claim, the cause of action therefor, however, must accrue either before or D after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has raised his defence. Respondent in his application for --/.. amendment of written statement categorically raised the ' ~ ' plea that the appellants had trespassed on the lands, in question, in the summer of 1998. Cause of action for filing E the counter claim was said to have arisen at that time. It ,_ was so explicitly stated in the said application. The said application was, thus, clearly not maintainable. A belated counter claim must be discouraged by this Court. [Paras 10, 11] [1016-D, E, F; 1017-E] F Mahendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1987) 3 )r" SCC 265; Shanti Rani Oas Oewanjee (Smt.) v. Oinesh Chandra Day (Dead) by Lrs. (1997) 8 SCC 17 4; Gurbachan Singh v. Bhag Singh and Ors. (1996) 1 SCC 770; Ramesh Chand V. Anil Panjwam (2003) 7 sec 350 - relied on. G Baldev Singh and Ors. v Manohar Singh and Anr (2006) 6 sec 498 - referred to. 2.1. In some decisions of this Court, defendant has >- been allowed to amend his written statement so as to H enable him to elaborate his defence or to take additional • SOLLE PANDA P. POONACHA AND ANR. v. 1013 K.M. MADAPA pleas in support of his case. The Court in such matters A has a wide discretion. It must, however, subserve the ultimate cause of justice. It may be true that further litigation should be endeavoured to be avoided. It may also be true that joinder of several causes of action in a suit is permissible. [Paras 12,13] [1017-F, G] B State of A.P & Ors. v. Mis. Pioneer Builders, A.P (2006) 9 SCALE 520; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) (9) SCALE 597; Himmat Singh and Ors. v. I. C. I. India Ltd. and Ors. (2008) 2 SCALE 152 - relied on. c 2.2 The Court, must, however, exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in a judicious manner. While considering that subservance of justice is the ultimate goal, the statutory limitation shall not be overstepped. Grant of relief will depend upon the factual background 0 involved in each case. The Court, while undoubtedly would take into c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.