ORDER DATED 09.06.2015 PASSED IN THE COURT OF
THE XVIII ADDL. CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE ALLOWING I.A.NO.11 IN O.S.NO.8066/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, PERMITTING THE RESPONDENT TO
PRODUCE THE DOCUMENT AND TO LEAD EVIDENCE ON
THE SAME.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a defendants writ petition assailing order dated 09.06.2015 passed in O.S.8066/2012 whereunder trial court has allowed the application filed by plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 6(A)(3) of CPC and permitted the plaintiff to file written statement to the counter claim raised by defendants.
2
2. It is urged in the writ petition that counter claim came to be filed by defendants on 15.12.2012 and respondent ought to have filed objections within 30 days from said date and as such permitting defendants to file written statement to the counter claim belatedly would be contrary to mandate of Order VIII Rule 6(A) of CPC. This court and Apex court have consistently held that provisions of order VIII is not mandatory and directory and if the circumstances of the case demanded condoning the delay same can be condoned. In the instant case counter claim was no doubt filed on 15.12.2012 whereunder certain monies are claimed by defendant from plaintiff. However, Court fee had not been paid at the time of filing counter claim and only when defendants filed a receipt for having paid the court fee on the counter claim on 08.06.2015, plaintiff filed the application in question and sought for condonation of delay and permission to file written statement to the counter claim. In the light of note made in the order sheet on 08.06.2015 to the effect that defendant has paid Court fee on counter claim, trial court has
3
exercised its discretionary power to permit the writ petitioner to file written statement to the counter claim of defendants and trial court has suitably compensated defendants for such delay by awarding costs. There is no error committed by trial court calling for interference. Writ Petition lacks merit and it stands dismissed. SD/-
JUDGE
SBN
4