M/S Cev Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Brij Mohan Punj
2015 Latest Caselaw 8696 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        CS(OS) 1038/2013

                                        Reserved on:      10.08.2015
                                        Date of decision: 23.11.2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S CEV ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.                      ..... Plaintiff
                   Through: Mr. Vikas Malhotra and
                   Mr.M.P.Sahay, Advocates

                         versus

BRIJ MOHAN PUNJ                                       ..... Defendant
                         Through: Ms.Mukti Chaudhry, Mr.Amritansh
                         Vats and Ms.Prachi Agarwal, Advocates

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.

I.A. 11535/2015 (by the defendant, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the defendant under

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code')

praying inter alia for permission to amend the written statement and

introduce a counter claim as proposed in paras 8 to 11 therein.

2. Before dealing with the respective submissions advanced by the

counsels for the parties, a brief reference to the factual background of

the case is necessary.

3. The plaintiff company(tenant) has filed the present suit on

21.5.2013, for seeking recovery of a sum of `42,10,000/- towards the

security amount allegedly wrongfully withheld by the

defendant(landlord), along with the pendente lite and future interest

and for claiming damages to the tune of `10 lacs .

4. Summons were issued in the suit on 24.5.2013, returnable on

28.11.2013. After the service of the summons, the defendant had

filed the written statement on 6.9.2013 and the plaintiff had filed the

replication on 6.11.2013. Pleadings were completed in the suit, the

case remained pending before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial

of documents that was finally conducted on 29.1.2015. The case was

listed before the court on 23.3.2015, for framing of issues and with the

consent of the parties, they were referred to mediation, but as is

apparent from the Mediator's report dated 5.5.2015, there was no

amicable settlement. Thereafter, the present application came to be

filed by the defendant on 18.5.2015, seeking leave to file a counter

claim.

5. Ms. Chaudhry, learned counsel for the defendant had submitted

that the suit for recovery of money has been filed by the plaintiff for

recovery of the security amount to the tune of `42,10,000/- deducted

by the defendant (landlord). The lease deed in respect of the tenanted

premises that was originally for a period of three years, commencing

on 1.10.2008 and had expired on 30.9.2011. A fresh lease deed was

executed by the parties for a period of four years, that commenced on

1.10.2011 and was to expire on 30.9.2015. The renewed lease deed

had a lock-in period of 24 months. It is the case of the defendant that

though the said lock in period was to expire on 1.10.2013, the plaintiff

had proceeded to vacate the suit premises nine months in advance, on

31.12.2012.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant had stated that at the time of

filing the written statement, a specific plea was taken by the defendant

in para 2 of the preliminary objections and para 5 on merits to the

effect that the plaintiff company had breached clause 4.2 of the lease

deed dated 30.9.2011, by vacating the suit premises prior to the

expiry of the lock-in period and it is liable to pay a sum of `29,66,023/-

towards the rental for the period of nine months which was a part of

the lock-in period. It was stated that in order to mitigate the losses

caused at the hands of the plaintiff company, the defendant had made

sincere efforts to look out for a tenant and finally, in July 2013, he had

executed two separate lease deeds in respect of different portions of

the suit premises with two different parties. After adjusting the rent

that was received from the said parties, the amount payable by the

plaintiff company for the lock-in period stood reduced from a sum of

`29,66,023/-, to a sum of `9,03,155/-. Premised on the aforesaid

claim, the defendant seeks leave to file a counter claim for recovery of

an amount of `11,23,310/- payable by the plaintiff company for the

remaining lock-in period, including the interest component.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant stressed that the present

application is bonafide and made at the earliest opportunity. She

stated that the plaintiff company would not be prejudiced in any

manner if the application is allowed as issues have not been framed so

far and the trial in the suit has yet to commence. She added that even

otherwise, the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of the

amount mentioned in the counter claim has not yet expired as the

cause of action for instituting a fresh suit would have arisen on

31.12.2012, the date on which the suit premises had been vacated by

the plaintiff company during the subsistence of the lock-in period and

if reckoned from the said date, the period of limitation which is three

years, shall expire on 30.12.2015. To fortify her submission that even

after the stage of filing the written statement is over, the defendant is

entitled to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code for

seeking amendment of the written statement and for incorporating the

counter claim, learned counsel had placed reliance on a decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil

Panjwani reported as (2003) 7 SCC 350.

8. A reply in opposition to the present application has been filed by

the plaintiff company. Mr.Vikas Malhotra, learned counsel for the

plaintiff had canvassed that the counter claim sought to be introduced

by the defendant is barred by limitation, as prescribed under Order

VIII Rule 6A of the Code and resultantly, the application being legally

untenable and unsustainable, is liable to be rejected. He contended

that all the facts stated in the present application were well within the

knowledge of the defendant at the time of filing the written statement

and no new facts/developments have taken place thereafter which

would entitle him to approach the court so belatedly, asking for

permission to file the counter claim, having already filed the written

statement in September 2013. It was argued that merely because the

defendant had stated in the written statement, that he is entitled to

receive the differential of the rent for the period of nine months, which

is a part of the lock-in period, would not be a ground to grant him

leave as the defendant has failed to demonstrate that despite due

diligence, he was not in a position to file the counter claim along with

the written statement. In support of his submission that the

provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code prescribe that once the

written statement has been filed by a party, a counter claim ought not

to be entertained by the court, reference was made to a decision of

the Supreme Court in the case of Bollepanda P.Poonacha and Anr. Vs.

K.M.Madapa, reported as (2008) 13 SCC 179.

9. The Court has perused the pleadings in the application and

examined the record in the light of the arguments advanced by the

counsels for the parties. Before dealing with the submissions made, it

is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of law applicable to

the case at hand.

10. Order VIII CPC deals with "written statement, set-off and

counter-claim". The said provision was firstly amended by the

Amendment Act 104 of 1976, whereunder Rule 5 relating to specific

denial was re-numbered and Rules 6A to 6G were inserted. Later on,

by virtue of Act 22 of 2002, Rule 8A was omitted and Rules 1, 1A, 9

and 10 were substituted w.e.f. 01.07.2002. Under Rule 1, the

defendant is required to present a written statement of his defence

within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him. The

proviso appended to the said Rule extends the period for filing the

written statement to not later than ninety days from the date of

service of summons, but for reasons to be recorded in writing. Under

Rule 6, the defendant may at the first hearing of the suit but not

afterwards unless permitted by the Court, present a written statement

containing particulars of the debt sought to be set-off, subject to the

pecuniary limits of the concerned court. Rule 6A deals with filing of a

counter claim by the defendant, Rule 6B refers to the

details/averments required to be stated by the defendant in a counter

claim and Rule 6C entitles the plaintiff to apply to the Court for

exclusion of the counter claim set up by a defendant. The aforesaid

Rules introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976 are reproduced

hereinbelow for ready reference:-

"6A. Counter claim by defendant.- (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of to suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not:

Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

(2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim.

(3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court.

(4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.

6B. Counter claim to be stated.- Where any defendant seeks to rely upon any ground as supporting a right of counter-claim, he shall, in his written statement, state specifically that he does so by way of counter claim.

6C. Exclusion of counter-claim.- Where a defendant sets up a counter-claim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim but in an independent suit, the plaintiff may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter-claim may be excluded, and the Court may, on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit."

11. Order VIII Rule 8 of the Code empowers the defendant or the

plaintiff, as the case may be, to raise any new ground of defence,

which has arisen after the institution of the suit or the presentation of

a written statement claiming a set-off or a counter-claim. Rule 9

prescribes that 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 additional written statement from any of the

parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the

same.

12. The other relevant provision is Order VI Rule 17 of the Code that

provides for amendment of the pleadings subject to the conditions

prescribed in Rule 17 (that was amended by the Act 22 of 2002),

which do not have any application in the present case. It is well settled

that amendment applications are ordinarily required to be considered

liberally by the courts. The judicial dicta is that amendments to the

written statement ought to be considered by the courts more liberally

than an amendment application filed by the plaintiff for seeking

permission to amend the plaint. A glance at Order VIII Rule 6A

indicates that a defendant is expected to file a counter claim alongwith

the written statement and the right to set up a counter claim is over

and above the right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6. In other

words, a set-off has to be pleaded in the body of the written statement

and the counter claim must also form a part of the written statement

and should relate to a cause of action that has accrued to a defendant

against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit but before

the defence has been delivered under the written statement or before

the timeline prescribed for delivering the defence has expired.

13. The inevitable conclusion is that once the right of the defendant

to file the written statement has expired, then a counter claim cannot

be filed. However, on considering a case where the written statement

has been filed belatedly, the court does have the discretion to permit

the same even if it contains a plea in the nature of set-off or a

counter-claim. While doing so, the court must be cautious in exercising

its discretion and keep in mind whether the belated leave granted to

the defendant would cause any prejudice the plaintiff or take away a

vested right that may have accrued in his favour due to the lapse of

time.

14. In the case of Ramesh Chand (supra) referred to by learned

counsel for the defendant, the question of law engaging the Supreme

Court was whether it is permissible to raise and plead a counter claim

though the appellant/defendant had not filed a written statement and

had also lost his right to do so. The facts of the said case were that the

appellant/defendant had been proceeded against ex-parte in the suit

and a counter claim was sought to be pleaded by him belatedly,

without first filing a written statement. Turning down the plea of the

appellant/defendant that it is permissible to prefer a counter claim

even in the absence of any written statement and in circumstances

where he had been proceeded against ex-parte, the Supreme Court

had observed that there are three modes of pleading or setting up a

counter claim in a civil suit, firstly, at the stage of filing the written

statement under Order VIII Rule 1, secondly by way of an amendment

in the written statement subject to permission from the Court and

lastly, by way of a subsequent pleading under Rule 9. The following

observations made in the said context are considered apposite and are

reproduced hereinbelow:-

"28. Looking to the scheme of Order VIII as amended by Act No.104 of 1976, we are of the opinion, that there are three modes of pleading or setting up a counter-claim in a civil suit. Firstly, the written statement filed under Rule 1 may itself contain a counter-claim which in the light of Rule 1 read with Rule 6-A would be a counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff preferred in exercise of legal right conferred by Rule 6-A. Secondly, a counter-claim may be preferred by way of amendment incorporated subject to the leave of the Court in a written statement already filed. Thirdly, a counter-claim may be filed by way of a subsequent pleading under Rule 9. In the latter two cases the counter-claim though referable to Rule 6-A cannot be brought on record as of right but shall be governed by the discretion vesting in the Court, either under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC if sought to be introduced by way of amendment, or, subject to exercise of discretion conferred on the Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC if sought to be placed on record by way of subsequent pleading. The purpose of the provision enabling filing of a counter-claim is to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings and save upon the Court's time as

also to exclude the inconvenience to the parties by enabling claims and counter-claims, that is, all disputes between the same parties being decided in the course of the same proceedings. If the consequence of permitting a counter-claim either by way of amendment or by way of subsequent pleading would be prolonging of the trial, complicating the otherwise smooth flow of proceedings or causing a delay in the progress of the suit by forcing a retreat on the steps already taken by the Court, the Court would be justified in exercising its discretion not in favour of permitting a belated counter-claim. The framers of the law never intended the pleading by way of counter-claim being utilized as an instrument for forcing upon a re-opening of the trial or pushing back the progress of proceeding. Generally speaking, a counter-claim not contained in the original written statement may be refused to be taken on record if the issues have already been framed and the case set down for trial, and more so when the trial has already commenced. But certainly a counter-claim is not entertainable when there is no written statement on record. There being no written statement filed in the suit, the counter-claim was obviously not set up in the written statement within the meaning of Rule 6-A. There is no question of such counter-claim being introduced by way of amendment; for there is no written statement available to include a counter claim therein. Equally there would be no question of a counter-claim being raised by way of 'subsequent pleading' as there is no 'previous pleading' on record." (emphasis added)

15. It was thus clarified by the Supreme Court that the cause of

action for setting up the counter claim should have arisen before filing

the written statement [Ref: Mahendra Kumar vs. State of M.P.

reported as (1987) 3 SCC 265]. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme

Court had also taken note of an earlier decision in the case of Sangram

Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah reported as AIR 1955 SC 425

wherein it was held that in spite of the fact that the defendant in the

said case had been proceeded against ex-parte in the suit, he had the

right to appear at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and was

entitled to participate in the subsequent hearing from the time of

entering appearance. But, the defendant was not entitled to file the

written statement unless he was in a position to show good cause for

his previous non-appearance and thus seek relegation to the position

prior to being proceeded against ex-parte. The aforesaid view taken by

a two-Judge Bench in the case of Sangram Singh (supra) was restated

by a three-Judge Bench in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar

reported as AIR 1964 SC 993. In the same year, in the case of

Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala vs. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala

reported as AIR 1964 SC 11, it was held by the Supreme Court that a

right to plead a counter claim is a statutory right and a counter claim

is not admissible in a case which is admittedly not within the statutory

provisions. In the said decision, it was clarified that the crucial date for

the purpose of determining when the counter claim can be stated to

have been filed and pleaded as on a par with a plaint in a cross suit, is

the date on which the written statement containing the counter claim

is filed. The Supreme Court had also cautioned that save in exceptional

cases, a counter claim cannot be permitted to be incorporated by way

of amendments proposed under Order VI rule 17 CPC.

16. In the case of Bollepanda P.Poonacha (supra), relied upon by

learned counsel for the plaintiff, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme

Court had picked up the thread from the decision in the case of

Ramesh Chand (supra) and held that a belated counter claim must be

discouraged by the court. In the said case, the question that had

arisen for consideration was as to whether it is permissible to file a

counter claim after filing the written statement. Looking at the facts of

the case where the suit was instituted by the appellant/plaintiff against

the respondent/defendant claiming title and possession over a

property in the year 1997 and the respondent/defendant had filed a

written statement in the same year, wherein he had taken a plea that

he had lawfully purchased the suit property, the respondent/defendant

had filed an application after the passage of nine years, in the year

2006, asking for leave to plead a counter claim on the premise that he

had been dispossessed by the appellant/plaintiff in the year 1998. The

application filed by the respondent / defendant for permission to plead

a counter claim was allowed by the Civil Judge whose order was

upheld by the High Court in appeal. Aggrieved by the said decision, the

appellant/plaintiff had approached the Supreme Court, who had

opined that the Civil Judge had erred in allowing the amendment

application filed by the respondent/defendant. Taking note of the

provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A CPC which relate to filing of a counter

claim by the defendant, the Supreme Court had observed that in such

matters, the courts have wide discretion and the attempt must be to

sub-serve the cause of justice and avoid further litigation. However, a

word of caution was added that the said discretion must be exercised

in a judicious manner and the statutory limitation should not be

overstepped. Looking at the factual position, where the

respondent/defendant had elected to file an application for leave to

plead a counter claim after the lapse of over nine years from the date

of filing the written statement, the Supreme Court had allowed appeal

filed by the appellant/plaintiff noting that he would suffer serious

injustice and irreparable loss if such an amendment was allowed.

17. In the instant case, the suit for recovery of money was instituted

by the plaintiff/company on 21.05.2013, the written statement was

filed by the defendant on 06.09.2013 and prior to the stage of framing

of issues, an amendment application was filed by the defendant on

18.05.2015, for permission to plead a counter claim, wherein he is

seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.11,23,310/- from the plaintiff for

the alleged breach of the lock-in period clause incorporated in the

Lease Deed dated 30.09.2011, by vacating the suit premises nine

months in advance. It is pertinent to note that the explanation offered

by the defendant for pleading a counter claim is that after filing the

written statement on 06.09.2013, he had initiated steps to mitigate

the losses caused by the plaintiff/company by prematurely vacating

the suit premises and he made efforts to locate a tenant. The

defendant claims to have succeeded in identifying two tenants in July,

2013. The present application was filed by the defendant in May, 2015,

claiming recovery of monies after deducting the amount received by

him from the new tenants for a part of the lock-in period, thus scaling

down the amount payable by the plaintiff company to the residual

period prior to July, 2013, i.e., between January, 2013 to June, 2013.

18. Given the facts above, the cause of action for pleading the

counter claim would have arisen on 31.12.2012, when the

plaintiff/company had elected to vacate the suit premises. The

prescribed period of limitation for instituting a suit for recovery of

monies for the alleged wrongful loss caused by the plaintiff/company

to the defendant due to vacating the suit premises prematurely, would

have commenced on 31.12.2012 and it shall expire at the end of three

years, on 30.12.2015.

19. It is a matter of record that though no counter claim had been

filed, its foundation was laid by the defendant, who had taken such a

plea in para 2 under the preliminary objections and in para 5 on merits

of the written statement. In para 2 of the preliminary objections, he

had specifically referred to clause 4.2 of the Lease Deed dated

30.09.2011, which prescribed that tenant was not entitled to terminate

the lease without cause during the initial period of 24 months

described as the lock-in period and if the plaintiff/company wished to

terminate the lease during the lock-in period, it was required to pay

the rent for the residual period. Stating that the plaintiff/company was

obliged to pay the rent to the tune of Rs.61,86,474/- towards the lock-

in period of nine months, apart from the service tax, maintenance

charges etc., which would total to a sum of Rs.71,76,123/-, the

defendant had explained that the said amount had been adjusted

against the security deposit of Rs.42,10,100/- lying with him and even

after making the said adjustment, a sum of Rs.29,66,023/- was due

and payable by the plaintiff/company, apart from the electricity and

water dues.

20. In para 5 on merits of the written statement, the defendant had

reiterated that after adjustment of the security amount, a total sum of

Rs.29,66,023/- was due and payable by the plaintiff/company towards

the rent for the remaining months of the lock-in period and the

outstanding electricity and water dues. However, the written

statement did not specifically plead a counter claim, which oversight is

sought to be rectified by the defendant by filing the present

application.

21. In the present application, the defendant has elaborated the fact

that that the suit premises was let out by him in two parts to two

different parties w.e.f. 01.07.2013 and 12.07.2013 respectively and

taking into consideration the fact that he had received a sum of

Rs.55,08,319/- as rent from both the tenants for the period between

01.07.2013 to 30.09.2013 and after adjusting the said amount from

Rs.64,11,474/- being the total amount that was payable by the

plaintiff company as rent during the lock-in period, a balance sum of

Rs.9,03,155/- would be due and payable to him alongwith interest.

Thus, as against a sum of Rs.22,01,374/- that the defendant had

quantified in the written statement, as due and payable by the

plaintiff/company after adjusting the security deposit of

Rs.42,10,100/-, by virtue of the amendment application, due to the

events that had transpired subsequently, the defendant has reduced

the amount demanded to Rs.9,03,155/-, for which purpose he has

sought leave to plead a counter claim limited to a sum of

Rs.11,23,310/- (including the interest component).

22. On examining the facts of the present case, it clearly emerges

that it is not a case where the defendant had not made any specific

averment in his written statement with regard to the amounts that he

now claims are due and payable by the plaintiff/company for the

residual period of the lock-in period except for the fact that the said

amount has not been claimed in the form of a counter claim. Even

otherwise, when the period of limitation for instituting a fresh suit for

recovery is to be reckoned from 31.12.2012, the date when the

plaintiff/company had admittedly vacated the suit premises, the

defendant still has time upto 30.12.2015 to institute a separate suit for

recovery against the plaintiff/company. Moreover, issues have yet to

be framed in the suit and the case has not been set down for trial.

Looking at the stage of the suit, this is not a case where permitting

the defendant to plead a counter claim by way of the proposed

amendment would result in prolonging the trial or causing delay in the

progress of the suit. Rather, it is a case where the foundation for

maintaining a counter claim form a part of the pleadings in the written

statement and only the claim amount is sought to be pared down by

the defendant due to the subsequent events narrated above. In this

background, the defendant proposes to amend the written statement

by seeking leave of this court to plead a counter claim, for which he is

in any case entitled to sue the plaintiff/company by instituting an

independent suit on the same cause of action.

23. Unlike the facts in the case of Bollepanda P.Poonacha (supra),

referred to by learned counsel for the plaintiff where the

respondent/defendant had taken over nine years to file an application

for leave to file a counter claim, when the cause of action had arisen at

the time of instituting the suit, in the present case, the defendant has

acted with alacrity. After the pleadings were complete in the suit and

the admission/denial of documents was conducted in January, 2015,

the parties had expressed their willingness to submit themselves to

mediation, which had unfortunately not succeeded. The report of the

learned Mediator stating that the mediation had ended as a non-starter

is of the first week of May, 2015 and the instant application was filed

by the defendant without losing any time, in the second week of May,

2015. Thus, it cannot be stated that the defendant had not shown due

diligence or dragged his feet, which is a relevant factor and ought to

weigh with the Court while granting permission to plead a counter

claim.

24. The submission made by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the

two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bollepanda

P.Poonacha (supra) had considered an earlier decision of a two-Judge

Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand (supra) and

had still proceeded to hold that by inserting Order VIII Rule 6A in the

CPC, the legislature had placed an embargo on the exercise of

jurisdiction by the court, was an observation made in the facts of the

said case. Pertinently, in the very same judgment, Justice S.B. Sinha,

the author of the said decision had held that the court has a wide

discretion in such matters and the end purpose must be to sub-serve

the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation by driving the

defendant to file a separate suit. Reference made in the said case to

the decision in the case of Ramesh Chand (supra) was in the context

of emphasizing that filing of a belated counter claim must be

discouraged.

25. It therefore cannot be urged that in the case of Bollepanda

P.Poonacha (supra), a digression has been made from the view taken

by the two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the earlier case of

Ramesh Chand (supra). Rather, on a conspectus of the case law on the

point involved, the subsequent judgment has only reaffirmed the view

taken earlier, that a belated counter claim should not find favour with

the Court. This is not to say that it has diluted the earlier decision

which has carefully weighed the pros and cons of circumstances where

a counter claim can be permitted.

26. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court

is of the opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the defendant ought

to be permitted to plead a counter claim instead of filing a separate

suit for the relief of recovery of money, which arises out of the same

cause of action that has impelled the plaintiff company to institute the

suit against the defendant. There is neither any inexplicable delay on

the part of the defendant in approaching the Court for permission to

plead a counter claim, nor is there any bar by way of limitation that

would cause a prejudice to the plaintiff/company if such an application

is allowed. Rather, the purpose of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code would

be served by permitting the defendant to file the counter claim to

avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings, save the courts' time and

litigation expenses and avoid causing inconvenience to the parties by

settling all the disputes that have arisen between them in the course of

the present proceedings.

27. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The defendant

is permitted to amend the written statement and introduce the

counter claim as proposed therein. The requisite court fee payable on

the counter claim shall be deposited within two weeks.

No orders as to costs.

                                                         (HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 23, 2015                                           JUDGE
mk/rkb/ap