The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Extend the interim order granted by this Hon'ble Court dated 19-03-2018 in lA No.1 of 2018 in CRP No. 1792 of 2018 until further orders in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rmay be pleased to Stay atl further proceedtngs in OS.t',Io.152 of 2014 on the file of the lAddl Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad pending disposal of this Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI B.S. PRASAD (SR. COUNSEL) REPRESENTING SRI NAGARAJU Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents: MS. SWETHA PAMIDI FOR RESPONDENT Nos.l & 2. Counsel for the Respondents: SRI EMMIDALA KOTAIAH FOR RESPONDENT No. 3. Counsel for the Respondents: DISHIT BHATTACHARJEE FOR RESPONDENT No.1 & 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.L792 OF 2018 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Order, dated

28.02.20 18 passed in I.A.No.137 of 2Ol7 in O.S.No. L52 of 2Ol4 on the file of I Additional Chief District Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

2. Heard Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Swetha Pamidi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Emmidala Kotaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Nos.l and 2/Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for eviction of the defendants and possession. The defendants filed a written statement-cum- counter claim on 14.03.2OI5 seeking a relief for partition of suit schedule property into three equal parts by metes and bounds by / \ 2 appointing ari advocate-commissioner. Pend-ing the suit as well as the counter-claim, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.137 of 2017 to permit therm to file a rejoinder against a counter: claim made by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement. Respondent Nos.l to 3 filed written statement denying the allegations levelled in the plaint and also claimed that they are the legal heirs of late Bhadramma, along with the plaintiffs/petitioners and as such they being the coparceners cannot be evicted from the suit schedule property as they have equal rights in the said property.

5. No doubt, in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, the defendants are having every right to file a counter claim along rvith the written statement. In the present suit, the defendants have claimed a relief of partition and they are bound to pay the stamp duty. Though the said written statement was filed along with the counter claim on O4.03.2015, no court fee was paid at that time and it appears that it was paid subsequently after two years vide Memo, dated L4.Ll.2Ol7 a Court Fee of Rs.20O/ and the same was accepted.

6. As per sub-rule 3 of Rule 6-A of Order VIII ol C.P.C. provides that in a case where a counter claim is filed alc,ng with written statement, the plaintiff will be at liberty to file a written statement '- --* -/ i I J in answer to the counter claim made by the defendant within such period as affixed by the Court. It is appropriate to refer the sub-rule 3 of Rule 6-A of Order VIII of C.P.C. " [6A. Counter-claim by defendant.- (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."

7. In the present case, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the said rejoinder by way of the present Application was filed much prior to the payment of Court fee on l4.ll.2oI7. For all practical purposes, as such, the sarne has to be treated on par with the suit and that the starting point for taking the counter claim on record. will be treated as l4.ll.2(.]7. However, the application under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. was filed on 2L.1I.2O16 which is much prior to the payment of Court fee on counter claim. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the proviso under VIII Rule 9 of CPC and Order 6A (3) contemplates the Court to fix a time for filing additional written statement. However, the trial Court has not fixed any time and the application filed for rejoinder was taken on file and reglstered as I.A.No. 137 of 2Ol7 . 4

8. on perr.rsal of the record, it shows that ttrere are certain procedures to be followed on for filing of the ap,plication under order VIII Rule 9 of the cPC though the C.P.C. drres contemplate and also taking the counter claim as an independent suit, it is incumbent on the Court to verify the counter clairn and the sarne has to underglo the process of checking as done wLrile registering a suit, and if ot,herwise in order, in all aspects, such as as to cause of action, cou.rt fees, Limitation Jurisdiction and other aspects which are checked in the suit, so that the same can be dealt with independentl5r along with the main suit treating t.he said counter claim as a cross suit.

9. In the present case, in view of the abovr: said peculiar circumstances, no application is required for filing of rejoinder to file the written statement, but the same was filerl and taken on record and considering the reasons cited by the tr:ial Court while deciding the application appears to be totally on erroneous conclusion that the said rejoinder was filed at a. belated stage. without considering the facts that the counter claim was filed on

04.03.2015, trut the Court fee was paid only on 14.11.2015. No doubt Order VI Rule 5 of CPC provides that all the rules which are applicable for written statements shall be made applicable to the rejoinder and though the period fixed for filing the written 5 statement being 3O days from the date of service. of notice which is extendable for further period as provided under law. Order VI Rule 5 of CPC reads as under: "Order 6: Pleadings generally. I to 4: xxx

5. Further and better statement, or particulars- A further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading, may in all cases be ordered, upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as may be just. "

10. In the present case, as there is no date for filing rejoinder if any is fixed, in such case, it is in that case before the trial court if a time was fixed and the same was not adhered by the plaintiffs for filing the rejoinder. In the absence of any such fixing of time, the finding of the trial Court the contention that the counter claim was filed at a belated stage cannot be accepted.

11. For the aforesaid reasons and as the present suit is pertaining to the year 2OI4 and the rejoinder is already being taken on record to the counter claim, and issues also being framed even basing on the pleadings in the counter claim, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties and even otherwise the issues can be framed at any stage by the trial Court. \ .rr 6 L2. Though the procedure prescribed that the said rejoinder ought to have been verified and checked, it appears that the same was not done and that caused delay in depositing the Court fee.

13. I hold that this Court intends to lay down ce:rtain guidelines to be followecl b1, the trial Court while dealing whLile dealing with the counter claim. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct all the trial Courts to see that the said counter claim is registered by giving it a number'by following the procedure acopted/followed while checking and registering the suit as stated by this court in preceding paragraphs and then proceed further as cross suit along with the main suit and follow atl the steps as irr the main suit such as filing counters and rejoinders if any, and further framing of issues along 'rvith suit. L4. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is atlowed directing the trial Court to take the rejoinder as a written statement for the counter claim filed by defendants No.1 and 2 and t.he order, dated

28.02.2018 passed in I.A.No.137 of 2otr in o.s.No.ts2 of 2ot4 on the file of t Additional Chief District Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad is hereby set aside. a? 7

15. Needless to say, since, the said main suit pertains to the year 20L4, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments. Further, both the parties shall cooperate with the trial Court in disposal of the suit. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed There shall be no order as to costs. /TRUE COPY// SD/. P PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Addl chief .ludge, city civil court at Secunderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. NAGARAJU NAGURU Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES Advocate [oPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. DISHIT BHATTACHARJEE Advocate [oPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. R. KOTAIAH Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies PK/PSL YV HIGH COLIRT DATED i2311012025 ,+ Q o o 1 ri iltil ?t?1 * .*i,C ORDER CRP.No.1V92 of 2018 CIVIL REVISON PEITITION IS ALLOWED. { ""ew