Court No. - 30
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 78 of 2018 Revisionist :- Neelu Rana Opposite Party :- Anju Jain Counsel for Revisionist :- Anubhav Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chetan Chatterjee
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Re: Civil Misc. Exemption Application No. 2 of 2018 Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the application.
This exemption application is allowed. Re: SCC Revision Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.
Present revision has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Saharanpur in SCC Case No. 10 of 2016.
By the impugned order dated 17.11.2017, application being paper no. 47Ka filed by the revisionist for amendment in the written statement to enable him to raise his counter claim has been rejected on the ground that the evidence of plaintiff is over and the right of defence of the defendant has also been struck down and therefore, there is no justification for such counter claim.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Court below has failed to exercise his jurisdiction conferred under Order 15 Rule 5(2) CPC and the amount already paid is liable to be adjusted and therefore, since the money advanced is still lying with the plaintiff and therefore, the amendment in the written statement is liable to be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the impugned order and submits that this amendment is not clearly permissible as it was filed at a belated stage.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
Admittedly, the amendment application was filed after the trial has commenced and was hit by proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Apart from that, by amendment counter claim is sought to be added and included in the written statement. This could not have been done at such a belated stage in view of provisions of Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, which provides that the same can be filed before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired.
Under such circumstances, I do not find any any legal infirmity in the order impugned herein.
Present revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Abhishek