VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 07-03-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar, vide which the application moved by respondent No. 1 herein under Order 8 Rule 6-C of Civil Procedure Code for exclusion of counter-claim dated 4-01-1999 has been allowed.
(2.) THE case set up in the application was that the case was fixed for defence evidence, when the petitioner-defendant No. 1 moved counter-claim for specific performance of agreement dated 12-11-1985. It was alleged in the application that the counter-claim could not be entertained at this stage as it did not comply with the ingredients of Order 8 Rule 6-C CPC for making the counter- claim at the first stage i.e. at the time of filing of written statement. It was further alleged in the application that as per the stand of the petitioner defendant No. 1, the agreement to sell was dated 12-11-1985 whereas the counter-claim for specific performance of agreement to sell was filed on 4-01-1999 which is clearly time barred and the same could not be entertained at this belated stage. It was also submitted that the defendant petitioner had an independent right to file a separate suit for specific performance on the basis of alleged agreement to sell, but no counter-claim can be filed in the suit of the plaintiff-respondent at this belated stage. On these averments, the dismissal of the counter-claim filed by the defendant petitioner was prayed for. In the reply filed by the petitioner, the petitioner took preliminary objections that the application is not maintainable in the present form. Further that the plaintiff-respondent had filed this application just to harass the answering defendant-petitioner. On merit the stand taken was that the counter-claim has been filed by the petitioner herein for specific performance not only of agreement to sell dated 12-11-1985, but also of all subsequent commitments and assurance given by the plaintiff-respondent to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the counter-claim could be filed at any stage and that the counter-claim was within time and was complete in all respects. It was also pleaded that the counter-claim has become necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute on merits. The other ground taken by the petitioner was that the said counter-claim was filed to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to save valuable money of both the parties as well as the valuable time of judicial system. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent from the very beginning had played a dual role, one in the Court and the other outside the Court.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner was that the plaintiff-respondent had assured the petitioner that the suit filed was an eye-wash and to dodge the Income Tax Authorities. It was further pleaded that the plea of limitation can only be seen at the time of arguments and prayed that the application be dismissed.;