N B PRAKASH LATE Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 5 defendant filed IA-21 putting forth his counter-claim and contended that appellant must be permitted to file his counter-claim. THE applicant-Bank filed objections stating that the counter-claim is not maintainable and it was filed after a lapse more than five years from the date of filing the written statement and evidence was also recorded and 4th defendant has given the evidence on behalf of all the defendants and the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings.

(2.) The application was heard by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore and he dismissed the petition holding that the counter-claim is barred by time. Aggrieved against that order the appellant has come forward with this appeal.

(3.) THE Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the counter-claim is a time-barred debt and it cannot be allowed and he further contended that the written statement in this case was filed on 23.9.1996, evidence was taken and the evidence was also closed, and after filling the written statement the defendants did not take any steps to file the counter-claim and even though there was no provision under the Act originally for filing counter-claim the appellant ought to have filed the case in Civil Court with regard to this counter-claim then only it can be stated it is not time-barred and on the dale of filing the counter-claim it was time barred debt and as the defendants did not file counter-claim within time from the date of filing written statement the appellant should not be permitted to file the counter-claim and the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore is perfectly in order. He strenuously argued that the appellant cannot take advantage of the subsequent amendment which came in the year 2000 and contend that by virtue of the amendment the appellant is entitled to file the counterclaim even though it is time-barred.