Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1110 (GAU)

Bishnupada Das v. Ajit Bank

2019-09-26

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2019
ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by challenging an order dated 04.12.2018 passed in petition No. 312/2018 arising out of T.S. No. 10/2010 by the learned Munsiff, Hojai. 3. The petitioner is the defendant No. 4 in the T.S. presented an application under Order VIII Rule 8 and 9 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for leave of the Court to file additional written statement and counter claim. 4. The projected case as revealed from the said petition numbered as 312/18 is that certain information was gathered by the defendant No. 4 from the Jamabandi which was filed by the plaintiff at the time of submission of documents-Accordingly, the said petition was filed which according to the defendant No. 4 would not change the nature and character of the suit. 5. Against the said petition, the plaintiff had filed an objection on 2.4.2018. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel by referring to paragraph 7 of the said objection submits that the suit was instituted in the year 2010 and the petition filed seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement is a mere dilatory tactic. 6. The information sought to be gathered by the defendant No. 4 was from a Jamabandi which was in record of the case since a long time. 7. The learned Court of the Munsiff vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2018 had rejected the petition holding that there was no justified ground in the same. 8. The learned Court of the Munsiff had also relied upon a case of the Calcutta High Court namely M/s. Oriental Ceramic Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, wherein it has been stated that after framing of issues, it would be incumbent upon the party to establish that the information had come to the knowledge thereafter and any application made in the said provision without meeting the pre conditions would amount to abuse of the process. Order VIII Rules 8 and 9 of the C.P.C. under which the petition was filed is extracted herein below. "8. Order VIII Rules 8 and 9 of the C.P.C. under which the petition was filed is extracted herein below. "8. New ground of defence.-Any ground of defence which has arisen after the institution of the suit or the presentation of a written statement claiming a set-off 1[or counter-claim] may be raised by the defendant or plaintiff as the case may be, in his written statement. 9. Subsequent pleadings.-No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additionally written statement from any parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same." 9. Under Order VIII Rule 8, new ground of defence have to be confined only to a set of counter claim on an event which has arisen after institution of the suit or presentation of the written statement. 10. Rule 9 lays down an embargo that no proceedings other than by way of defence to set aside a counter claim shall be permitted except with the leave of the Court. The legislative intent of incorporating such embargo is to bring a finality in a suit in an expeditious manner. 11. In the instant case it is seen that the learned Court of the Munsiff had taken note of the fact that the additional written statement was sought to be filed by the defendant No. 4 (petitioner) after coming to note about certain alleged discrepancies in the manner which was submitted in the Court at the stage of submission of documents. The learned Munsiff had also taken a note that the issues were framed as back as in 26.05.2015 and after about more than 3years, the present petition was filed praying to leave and under those conditions, the petition was rejected. 12. As an revisional Court, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the learned Munsiff. Further, the order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or has been passed in excess of jurisdiction. The view taken by the learned Munsiff is a possible and plausible view which in the opinion of this Court is also a reasonable view. 13. Further, the order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or has been passed in excess of jurisdiction. The view taken by the learned Munsiff is a possible and plausible view which in the opinion of this Court is also a reasonable view. 13. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present challenge and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.