Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/438/2006 of PANKAJ GUPTA and ANR. Vs ADDL D.J and ORS on 29 December 2011
Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Anirudh Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and Sri Arvind Vashisth, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against his partner.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
WPMS 438/2006 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
Heard Sri Anirudh Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and Sri Arvind Vashisth, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
A suit was filed by the plaintiff against his partner. The written statement was preferred on 20[th] May, 1999 after a lapse of six and a half years and when the recording of the evidence had commenced, the defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking a relief to amend his written statement. A perusal of the amendment application indicates that more than 80 paragraphs were sought to be amended. The defendant also prayed for addition of a counter claim. The trial court partly allowed the amendment application after hearing the parties and wherever the trial court found it necessary, permitted the defendant to make the necessary amendment in his written statement. Certain paragraphs were rejected as it related to subsequent events and the relief of counter claim was also rejected. The defendant, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court finds that the trial court was justified in rejecting those paragraphs which related to subsequent events which were not essential to the disposal of the matter in relation to the issues already framed. Insofar as the counter claim is concerned, the Court finds from a perusal of the written statement that the cause of action admitted by the defendant was of the year 2000 and consequently, the counter claim after a lapse of more than six and a half years was barred by limitation and consequently, such counter claim could not be entertained after the belated period.
In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed.
Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action.
29-12-2011 SP
(Tarun Agarwala, J.)