GAYATHRI WOMENS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs GOWRAMMA
Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-006344-006344 / 2009
Diary number: 26275 / 2008
Advocates: SUSHIL BALWADA Vs
S. SRINIVASAN
REPORTABL E
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6344 OF 2009
Gayathri Womens Welfare Association .. Appellant
VERSUS
Gowramma & Anr. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
decree/order dated 23rd of July, 2008 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in
RFA No.1732 of 2005 filed by the respondents whereby
the High Court in part modified and in part set aside
the judgment and decree dated 4th August, 2005
passed by the Vth Additional City Civil Judge,
Bangalore in OS No.163 of 1999.
1
2. The short issue which arises before us is whether the
High Court was justified in permitting the respondents
to raise the counter claim at a stage after the issues
had been framed by the trial court.
3. In order to decide the aforesaid issue, it is not
necessary to make a detailed reference to the
chequered history of the litigation between the parties.
We may, however, briefly narrate the facts.
4. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs before the
trial court and the respondents were the defendants.
5. The appellant is an Association registered under the
Societies Registration Act. The appellant contends that
it purchased 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.110/2
of Laggere Village (the schedule property) under an
agreement of sale dated 26th November, 1988 from its
vendors Sri B.C. Vijayakumar and Smt. Mayamma. In
2
part performance of this agreement of sale, the
appellant was put in possession of the schedule
property. The appellant and is members are in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. In the
month of December, 1998, the respondents tried to
interfere with the appellant’s possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property and therefore, they
filed O.S.No.163 of 1999 for grant of decree of
permanent injunction.
6. The respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance before
the trial court, filed written statement inter alia contended
that they are the owners of a portion of land in Sy.No110/1
of Laggere village and the appellants are trespassing into
their property. The respondents, therefore, opposed the
claim of the appellants. On the basis of the pleadings, the
trial court framed the following three issues for its
consideration:
“1. Whether the appellant proves that it has been in
lawful possession of the suit schedule property ?
3
2. Whether the appellant proves interference?
3. To what order and reliefs the parties are entitled ?”
7. Before the trial court, the appellant examined six
witnesses as PWs1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P58. The
respondents examined one witness as DW-1 and got
marked Ex.D1 to D44. The trial court after hearing both the
parties and on appreciation of the pleadings oral and
documentary evidence on record held that the appellants
are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule
property; there is interference by the respondents and
consequently, decreed the suit of the appellants for
permanent injunction vide judgment
dated 4th August, 2005.
8. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the trial
court, the respondents approached the High Court of
Karnataka in RFA No.497 of 2002. The High Court by its
judgment dated 18th June, 2002 allowed the appeal, set
aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and
4
remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in
accordance with law. The High Court while remanding the
matter observed as under :
“Therefore, keeping in view the submissions made, I deem it desirable that fresh survey is to be carried out in this suit by the Assistant Director of Land Records (hereinafter referred to as ‘ADLR’) by giving notice to both the parties and in their presence the survey is to be made. The appellants are however entitled to produce the records of the survey done earlier as an additional document before the trial Court and after survey, considering the reports of the Surveyor and the additional documents, if any, and if necessary by allowing oral evidence, the trial court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law.”
9. After remand from the High Court, the respondents
amended their written statement and incorporated counter
claim to direct the appellants to demolish the structures put
up subsequent to passing of the status quo order by the
trial Court on the schedule property mentioned in the
written statement. To this counter claim of respondents,
the appellants filed written statement. On the basis of the
amended pleadings, the trial court framed the following two
additional issues:
5
“1. Whether the respondents prove that the appellant
Association have erected temporary sheds on the
schedule property subsequent to passing of
interim order in the above said suit.
2. Whether the respondents are entitled to the relief
of Mandatory Injunction by way of counter
claim.”
10. After remand and framing of additional issues, both
the parties adduced oral evidence and produced additional
documents. Pursuant to the directions issued by the High
Court in RFA No.497 of 2002, the trial court appointed
Assistant Director of Land Records (hereinafter referred to
as ‘ADLR’) as Court Commissioner to survey the schedule
property in the presence of both the parties. Accordingly,
the Court Commissioner conducted survey of the schedule
property and submitted his report to the trial court. The
Court Commissioner was examined as CW-1 and through
him three documents came to be marked as Ex.C1 to
Ex.C3.
6
11. Again the trial court after hearing both the parties and
upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral as well as
documentary evidence, on record decreed the suit of the
appellants by judgment and decree dated 4th August, 2005.
At the same time, the trial court dismissed the counter
claim filed by the respondents.
12. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the counter claim, the
respondents again came before the High Court in Regular
First Appeal No.1732 of 2005. It was conceded before the
High Court that the respondents do not have any grievance
in so far as the trial court decreed the suit of the appellants.
The only marginal issue raised by the respondents was that
the judgment and the decree of the trial court had to be
classified with reference to the survey conducted by the
ADLR after the matter was remanded by the High Court.
The other grievance made by the respondents was that the
trial court had committed a serious error in not decreeing
the counter claim. This, according to the respondents, has
7
resulted failure of justice. In support of this submission, the
respondents had relied upon the following judgments :-
a. Ishwardas Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh &
Ors. 1
b. Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Another 2 .
c. Jag Mohan Chawla & Anr. Vs. Dera Radha Swami
Satsand & Ors. 3
d. K.Moosa Hajji’s Widow Smt.Kannadiyil Ayissu &
Ors. Vs. Executive Officer Sree Lakshmi
Narasimha Temple 4 .
e. Nanduri Yogananda Lakshminarasimhachari &
Ors. Vs. Sri Agastheswaraswamivaru 5 .
f. Surinder Singh Vs. Kapoor Singh (dead) through
Lrs. & Ors. 6
13. On the other hand, the appellants supported the
judgment of the trial court on the ground that they had
1 1979 (4) SCC 163 2 JT 2002 (7) SC 182 3 1996 (4) SCC 699 4 AIR 1996 SC 2224 5 AIR 1960 SC 622 6 2005 (5) SCC 142
8
been put in possession of the land on the basis of the
survey conducted in the year 1981, under the agreement of
sale dated 26th November, 1988. The survey in 2003 after
remand, by virtue of order of the High Court
dated 18th June, 2002 in RFA No.497 of 2002, however,
indicated that the appellants were in possession of a portion
in Survey No.110/1 and another portion in Survey
No.110/2. It was the case of the appellants that unless they
are legally dispossessed by due process of law, they were
entitled to continue in the portion occupied by them in
Survey No.110/1. In support of their submission the
appellants relied on a judgment of this Court in
Rohit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 7 .
14. Upon consideration of the entire issues, the High
Court concluded that the plaint schedule property of the
appellants to the extent of 2 acres and 30 guntas was in
survey No.110/2 of Laggere Village. The High Court also
held that the survey dated 24th March, 1981 on the basis of
7 2006 (12) SCC 734
9
which the appellants had been put in possession on a
portion of survey No.110/1 and portion of survey No.110/2
had been set aside by the Joint Director of Land Records
(hereinafter referred to as ‘JDLR) on 22nd June, 1998 in
Appeal No.4/98. The High Court noted that this order of
JDLR was prior to the filing of the suit before the trial court
on 6th January, 1999. The fact that the appellants were in
possession of portions of Sy.No.110/1 and Sy.No.110/2
ought to have been pleaded in the original plaint. It is
further observed that, in any event, the appellants ought to
have amended the plaint contending that they are in
possession of a portion of Sy.No.110/1 and a portion in
Sy.No.110/2. Instead of making the necessary averments in
the original plaint or amending the pleadings, the prayer of
the appellants remained that they are in possession
of 2 acres and 30 guntas in Survey No.110/2. The High
Court further noted that the location of 2 acres and
30 guntas in Survey No.110/2 was clearly specified in the
survey sketch prepared by the ADLR in the year 2003. This
is also depicted in Ex.C3. The High Court noted that the
10
learned counsel for the respondents had no objection for
grant of decree for permanent injunction in favour of the
appellants, classified by the survey of 2003. Relying on the
submission of learned counsel for the respondents, the High
Court has confirmed the decree of permanent injunction in
favour of the appellant, with the modification in reference to
the survey sketch Ex.C3.
15. With reference to the counter claim, the High Court
observed that upon remand of the matter by the High Court
in RFA No.497 of 2002, the trial court permitted the
respondents to amend the written statement to incorporate
the relief of counter claim for mandatory injunction. After
the respondents had filed the amended written statement,
the appellants filed the written statement to the counter
claim. On the basis of the amended pleadings, the trial
court had framed additional issues. Upon the pleadings of
the parties and upon consideration of the material on
record, as noticed earlier, the trial court again decreed the
suit of the appellants but dismissed the counter claim.
11
16. During the pendency of the appeal before the High
Court, the respondents filed an application seeking
amendment of the written statement to include the
additional prayer in the counter claim for recovery of
possession of the suit schedule property falling within
Survey No.110/1. The High Court noticed that in the
normal course an application for amendment of the written
statement at the stage of appeal from the original decree
was not entertainable. However, since the dispute was
pending between the parties from the year 1981 and the
suit was pending since 1999, no injustice would be caused
to the appellant if the prayer for possession was also
permitted to be incorporated in the counter claim.
Justification given for taking such a view was to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings. To buttress its conclusion, the
High Court relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of
Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avtar Singh 8 . Allowing the appeal filed
8 AIR 1985 SC 857
12
by the respondents, the High Court passed the following
order :-
“1. The appeal is partly allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and decree of the trial court decreeing the suit of appellant for permanent injunction is modified specifying that the plaint schedule property as ABFH shown in green colour in survey sketch.
3. The respondents or anybody claiming under them are hereby permanently restrained from interfering from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as stated above.
4. The impugned judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the counter claim of the respondents is hereby set aside.
5. The application filled by the respondents for amendment of the counter claim is hereby allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents to amend the counter claim of the written statement before the trial court within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The trial court to provide an opportunity to the appellants to file additional written statement for this counter claim and to decide the matter in accordance to both the parties.
13
7. In view of the fact that already abundant evidence available on record and the matter is pending for a long time, a direction is issued to the trial court to expedite the matter and to dispose the counter claim of the of the respondents as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
It is the aforesaid order which is challenged by the
appellants herein.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
18. Mr. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the judgment of the High Court
runs counter to the law laid down by this Court in the case
of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani 9 and the
judgment of this Court in Rohit Singh’s case (supra).
Learned counsel further submitted that the mere fact the
respondents now wish to incorporate the prayer of
possession of the suit schedule property falling within
Survey No.110/1, is sufficient proof of possession of the
9 2003 (7) SCC 350
14
property by the appellants. Therefore, the trial court had
not committed any error in granting the decree of
permanent injunction for the entire suit schedule property.
The appellant and its members have built a number of
residential building and their members are residing in those
houses. Now if the respondents wish to take possession of
the aforesaid property they would have to seek the
necessary relief in appropriate proceedings, i.e., by filing a
separate suit for possession. According to the learned
counsel, the High Court had committed an error of
jurisdiction in permitting an amendment of the counter
claim when the dispute had already been pending between
the parties for more than 27 years. It is further the
submission of he learned counsel that by now incorporating
the prayer for possession, the respondents have
successfully obliterated the decree passed in their favour by
the trial court. He submits that by adopting such a
circuitous route, the respondents are trying to avoid the
legal objection including that the suit for possession is
barred by limitation which would be open to the appellants,
15
if such suit was to be filed now by the respondents with
regard to the portion of the suit schedule property falling
within Survey No.110/1.
19. On the other hand, Mr. Balgopal, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents also relied on certain
judgments of this Court, in support of his submission that
an amendment can be allowed by the court, at any stage of
the proceedings notwithstanding the law of limitation. He
has pointed out that the law is well settled that the
amendments in the pleadings are to be liberally permitted
by the court. The only rider is the court being satisfied that
such amendment is necessary for the determination of the
real question in controversy. In support of his submissions,
the learned counsel has made particular reference to the
judgment of this Court in Revajeetu Builders &
Developers Vs. Narayana Swamy & Sons 10 and Dhanpal
Balu Lhawale Vs. Adagouda Nemagouda Patil 11 .
10 2009 (10) SCC 84 11 2009 (7) SCC 457
16
20. Learned counsel by making a detailed reference to the
factual situation has submitted that the boundaries of the
land were fixed in the presence of the parties
on 3rd March, 2000 by the ADLR. The order of the ADLR was
upheld by the Revenue Authorities. The Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal dismissed Appeal No.398 of 2001 filed by
the appellants on 13th December, 2001. The order of the
Tribunal was challenged by the appellants in the High
Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition Nos.2661-64 of 2002.
The High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition by
order dated 4th March, 2002. In view of the above, the
matter regarding hudbust and fixing of boundaries and
rights of interest over the respective portions of the land
between the vendors of the appellants on the one hand and
the respondents had attained finality.
21. This apart, after the remand of the matter by the High
Court in RFA No.497 of 2002, the ADLR again conducted
the survey on 25th July, 2003. At that time, the survey
showed only 27 constructions in the disputed area i.e.
17
survey No.110/1. Only 16 constructions were in the land
belonging to the appellants in survey No.110/2. The survey
report of the ADLR clearly demonstrated that the appellants
had encroached on the land belonging to the respondents.
This had necessitated the amendment to the counter claim
for incorporation of the plea for possession of the same. It
was next submitted by the learned counsel that the High
Court was fully justified in allowing the application under
Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the counter claim,
the aforesaid application was filed along with RFA No.1732
of 2005. According to the learned counsel, the order passed
by the High Court under appeal was fully justified in the
interest of justice.
22. Learned counsel then submitted that the judgment of
this Court in Rohit Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable
to the facts of this case. It is still further submitted by the
learned counsel that the counter claim of the respondent is
independent of the claim made by the appellants. It stands
on a different footing. The counter claim is required to be
18
treated as an independent suit in view of the provisions of
Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Finally, it
is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellants are
not a bonafide litigants. Till date, the sale deed has not been
executed in their favour by the vendors. They are raising all
frivolous objections only on the basis of an alleged
agreement for sale. According to the learned counsel, the
appellants have been put up by the legal heirs of the
original owners from whom the respondents had purchased
the land.
23. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties. The trial court upon a
detailed appreciation of the evidence led by the parties
concluded that on the basis of the material on record, it can
be said that the possession of the appellant in respect of the
plaint schedule property as against the respondents was
long, settled and uninterrupted. On the basis of the
aforesaid conclusion, the trial court proceeded to decide the
issue with regard to the counter claim of the respondents.
19
24. It was noticed that the respondents wanted a direction
in the nature of the Mandatory Injunction, to be given to the
appellant to demolish the illegal construction, which came
subsequent to the passing of the status quo order. We may
notice here that the status quo order referred to by the trial
court had been passed on 7th January, 1999. The trial
court, however, observed that “the order of status quo was
granted in respect to disputed property. The disputed
property is what is described in the plaint schedule and not
in the schedule to the written statement.” Therefore, it was
observed that the respondents would have the cause of
action available to seek possession based on title and not on
the basis of mandatory injunction on account of violation of
status quo order. In these circumstances, the trial court
observed that the appropriate remedy available to the
respondents is to sue for possession.
25. In our opinion, the High Court, while allowing the
claims of the respondent to include the prayer for
20
possession in the counter claim, failed to appreciate that
the order passed by the trial court did not cause any
prejudice to the respondents. The trial court had merely
held that the remedy of an independent suit was available
to the respondents.
26. In our opinion, the judgments relied upon by the
respondents are really of no assistance in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
27. In Nanduri Yogananda Lakshminarasimhachari Vs.
Sri Agastheswaraswamivaru12, this Court observed that the
amendment could be permitted in a plaint as there was no
new fact to be alleged and the parties were alive to the real
nature of the dispute.
28. In the case of Pandit Ishwardas (supra), it has been
observed as follows :-
12 AIR 1960 SC 622
21
“There is no impediment or bar against an appellate Court permitting amendment of pleadings so as to enable a party to raise a new plea. All that is necessary is that the appellate Court should observe the well known principles subject to which amendments of pleadings are usually granted. Naturally one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment and, if made at the appellate stage, the reason why it was not sought in the trial court. If the necessary material on which the plea arising from the amendment may be decided is already there, the amendment may be more readily granted than otherwise. But, there is no prohibition against an appellate Court permitting an amendment at the appellate stage merely because the necessary material is not already before the Court.”
These observations clearly indicate that one of the
circumstances which will be taken into consideration before
an amendment is granted is the delay in making the
application seeking such amendment and, if made at the
appellate sage, the reason why it was not sought in the trial
court. In the present case, not only there is wholly
untenable delay in the application but the appellants had a
decree for permanent injunction in their favour.
22
29. In the case of Jagmohan Chawla (supra), this Court
considered the scope of Rule 6A to 6G of Order VIII CPC and
observed as follows:-
“It is true that in money suits, decree must be conformable to Order 20, Rule 18, CPC but the object of the amendments introduced by Rules 6-A to 6-G are conferment of a statutory right on the defendant to set up a counter-claim independent of the claim on the basis of which the appellant laid the suit, on his own cause of action. In sub-rule (1) of Rule 6-A, the language is so couched with words of wide width as to enable the parties to bring his own independent cause of action in respect of any claim that would be the subject-matter of an independent suit. Thereby, it is no longer confined to money claim or to cause of action of the same nature as original action of the plaintiff. It need not relate to or be connected with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the plaintiff. The words “any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing with the defendant” would show that the cause of action from which the counter- claim arises need not necessarily arise from or have any nexus with the cause of action of the plaintiff that occasioned to lay the suit. The only limitation is that the cause of action should arise before the time fixed for filing the written statement expires.”
The aforesaid observations, in our opinion, have no
relevance to the controversy in the present case, as the
claim of the respondent has been rejected by the trial court
on the ground that the cause of action arose a long time
ago.
23
30. In the case of Revajeetu Builders (supra), this Court
reiterated the very wide discretion the Courts have in the
matter of amendment of pleadings. These observations
were in the context of an application filed by the appellant,
seeking amendment of the original plaint including the
prayer clause being rejected by the High Court upon coming
to a definite conclusion that the appellant while seeking
permission to amend the plaint is trying to introduce a new
case, which was not his case in the original plaint and the
proposed amendment, if allowed, would certainly affect the
rights of the respondents adversely. It was also held that
any such amendment, which changes the entire character
of the plaint, can not be permitted and that too, after a
lapse of four years and after the institution of the suit. This
Court, upon a detailed consideration of the historical
background of Order VI Rule 17 and upon a comprehensive
survey of the case law, concluded that the amendment can
be permitted, if it was necessary for the determination of the
real question in controversy. If that condition is not
24
satisfied, the amendment can not be allowed. It was also
observed as follows:-
“22. …. The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the court.”
31. In our opinion, the decision of the trial court is in
conformity with the aforesaid principles. The trial court has
clearly held that the cause of action for the relief of
possession arose to the respondents many years ago. They
may, therefore, have a cause of action, if any, for an
independent suit. In the aforesaid case, the Court further
reiterated the principle in Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar 13
wherein it was rightly observed :
“The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court.”
13 1974 2 SCC 393
25
32. Similarly in Dhanpal Balu (supra), this Court
permitted the amendment in the facts and circumstances of
that case. Thus the judgment would not advance the case of
the appellant in any manner.
33. We may notice here the observations made by this
Court in the case of Ramesh Chand (supra) which may be
of some relevance. Upon considering the ratio of earlier
cases in the case of Sangaram Singh Vs. Election
Tribunal, Kotah 14 , Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar 15
and Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala Vs. Nanabhai
Chunilal Kabrawala 16 , it was held that a right to make a
counter claim is statutory and a counter claim is not
admissible in a case which is admittedly not within the
statutory provisions. It is further observed that :
“Looking to the scheme of Order 8 as amended by Act 104 of 1976, we are of the opinion, that there are three modes of pleading or setting up
14 AIR 1955 SC 425 15 AIR 1964 SC 993 16 AIR 1964 SC 11
26
a counter-claim in a civil suit. Firstly, the written statement filed under Rule 1 may itself contain a counter-claim which in the light of Rule 1 read with Rule 6-A would be a counter- claim against the claim of the appellant preferred in exercise of legal right conferred by Rule 6-A. Secondly, a counter-claim may be preferred by way of amendment incorporated subject to the leave of the court in a written statement already filed. Thirdly, a counter- claim may be filed by way of a subsequent pleading under Rule 9. In the latter two cases the counter-claim though referable to Rule 6-A cannot be brought on record as of right but shall be governed by the discretion vesting in the court, either under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC if sought to be introduced by way of amendment, or, subject to exercise of discretion conferred on the court under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC if sought to be placed on record by way of subsequent pleading. The purpose of the provision enabling filing of a counter-claim is to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings and save upon the court’s time as also to exclude the inconvenience to the parties by enabling claims and counter-claims, that is, all disputes between the same parties being decided in the course of the same proceedings. If the consequence of permitting a counter- claim either by way of amendment or by way of subsequent pleading would be prolonging of the trial, complicating the otherwise smooth flow of proceedings or causing a delay in the progress of the suit by forcing a retreat on the steps already taken by the court, the court would be justified in exercising its discretion not in favour of permitting a belated counter- claim. The framers of the law never intended the pleading by way of counter-claim being
27
utilized as an instrument for forcing upon a reopening of the trial or pushing back the progress of proceeding. Generally speaking, a counter-claim not contained in the original written statement may be refused to be taken on record if the issues have already been framed and the case set down for trial, and more so when the trial has already commenced.”
These observations make it clear that generally speaking
the counter claim not contained in the original written
statement may be refused to be taken on record, especially
if issues have already been framed. In the present case, the
counter claim is sought to be introduced at the stage of
appeal before the High Court.
34. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the
conclusions of the High Court that the discretion exercised
by the trial court was in any manner, illegal or arbitrary in
rejecting the counter claim of the respondents. We may
notice here the observations of this Court in the case of
Rohit Singh (supra) which are as follows :-
“A counterclaim, no doubt, could be filed even after the written statement is filed, but that
28
does not mean that a counterclaim can be raised after issues are framed and the evidence is closed. Therefore, the entertaining of the so- called counterclaim of Respondents 3 to 17 by the trial court, after the framing of issues for trial, was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction.”
These observations would show that the dismissal of the
counter claim by the trial court was neither illegal nor
without jurisdiction. In fact the direction issued by the High
Court would clearly run counter to the aforesaid
observations. In the aforesaid case, this Court was
considering a situation where the evidence had been closed,
arguments on behalf of the respondents had been
concluded, the suit was adjourned for arguments of the
appellants, the suit was dismissed for default.
Subsequently, it was restored. Thereafter the respondents
filed an application for amending the written statement. The
counter claim was filed by the intervener. In these
circumstances, it was observed that at this stage no counter
claim could be entertained.
29
35. In the present case, after the matter had been
remanded back, the trial court again decreed the suit of the
appellants, the counter claim was dismissed for the reasons
stated in the judgment of the trial court. We may restate
here that the prayer in the original counter claim was only
for a mandatory injunction to demolish the illegal
structures in Sy.No.110/1. It was only when the Regular
First Appeal was filed for challenging the original decree
that the respondents made an application under Order VI
Rule 17 for amendment of the original written statement to
incorporate the counter claim with a prayer for possession
of the land in dispute in Survey No.110/1. In such
circumstances, the High Court erred in disturbing the
findings recorded by the trial court.
36. The matter herein symbolizes the concern highlighted
by this Court in the case of Ramesh Chand (supra).
Permitting a counter claim at this stage would be to reopen
a decree which has been granted in favour of the appellants
by the trial court. The respondents have failed to establish
30
any factual or legal basis for modification/nullifying the
decree of the trial court.
37. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court
committed a serious error of jurisdiction in allowing the
appeal filed by the respondents. Consequently, the appeal is
allowed. The Judgment of the High Court is set aside.
…………………………..J. [B.Sudershan Reddy]
.………………………….J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]
New Delhi; January 11, 2011.
31