Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s N.C. Banerjee and Company, a firm of Chartered Accountants, was appointed as Special Officer by the Supreme Court of India to enlist properties of Sanchayani Savings and Investment India Ltd. (SSIL) and protect the interests of its depositors and investors. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, respondent no.1 claimed ownership of a property (Plot No.56, admeasuring 521.18 sq.mtrs.) and was directed by the Apex Court to file a suit for declaration of his ownership rights. Pursuant to that liberty, respondent no.1 filed a civil suit. In that suit, the petitioner (defendant no.3) filed a written statement along with a counter claim seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property was illegal and for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application (Exh.46) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the counter claim to include a relief of possession. The trial court rejected the amendment application on the ground that the counter claim was filed beyond the period of limitation for filing the written statement. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court held that the counter claim was filed within the period of limitation as it was filed before the first date of hearing, and the amendment sought to add a consequential relief which did not change the nature of the counter claim. The court observed that the amendment was necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The impugned order was set aside and the amendment application was allowed. The trial court was directed to permit the petitioner to amend the counter claim and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Counter Claim - Order 8 Rule 6A read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The petitioner, as Special Officer appointed by the Supreme Court to protect depositors' interests, sought to amend his counter claim to include a relief of possession of the suit property - The trial court rejected the amendment on the ground that the counter claim was filed beyond the period of limitation for filing written statement - Held that the counter claim was filed within limitation as it was filed before the first date of hearing, and the amendment sought to add a consequential relief which did not change the nature of the counter claim - The amendment was necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the counter claim filed by the petitioner (defendant no.3) seeking to incorporate a relief of possession, when the counter claim was already filed within the period of limitation and the amendment was necessary for effective adjudication.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 24/6/2011 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Nagpur is set aside. The application for amendment (Exh.46) is allowed. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to amend the counter claim and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Amendment of counter claim
- Order 8 Rule 6A CPC
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Special Officer appointed by Supreme Court
- Protection of depositors' interests
