HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Som and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard Sri Mahavir S. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I.P. Kohli, the learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for prohibitory injunction. The written statement was filed by the defendants on 10th February, 2004. Subsequently, an amendment application dated 16.09.2004 was filed to amend the written statement by adding a counter claim. This application was rejected by the trial court, against which, a revision was preferred, which was also dismissed. The defendants, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) The trial court rejected the counter claim of the defendants on the ground that it was filed belatedly at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiffs had already been led and therefore, such counter claim was not permissible at a belated stage. Before this Court, the plaintiff conceded that the counter claim was within the period of limitation. Consequently, if the petitioners chose to file a separate suit with regard to the counter claim, the same could be instituted as it was within the period of limitation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.