9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 2 has given us certain material dates of proceedings in the OA (Original Application) pending before the Tribunal. It is pointed out that the written statement was filed by the petitioners only in May 1997. On 3-7-1997, the parties on both sides were directed by the Tribunal to file affidavits by way of evidence. Thereafter, the matter proceeded for cross-examination of the bank s witnesses who had filed the affidavits. The cross-examination of the witnesses of the Bank was completed and Bank s evidence was closed on 8-3-1999. The case was thereafter fixed for the evidence of the petitioners herein on 15-3-1999. On 15-3-1999, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave. The case was listed on 17-3-1999. As the petitioners had not filed any affidavits by way of evidence till then, (although the order to this effect was passed way back on 3-7-1997) their evidence was closed on the said date. At this stage, the Tribunal was required to hear the argument in main OA. However, on 22-3-1999 the petitioners applied for permission to further cross-examine one of the witnesses of the Bank whose cross-examination had already been concluded earlier. This application was allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said CM (Main) 321 of 2000 was disposed of by order dated 22-6-2000. This order reads as under : "I heard Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Y.P. Narula, the learned counsel for the respondents. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi shall hear the learned counsel for parties on 3-7-2000 and shall dispose of the OA and IAs after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. CM (M) disposed of." 4. The tenor of the aforesaid orders shows that the petitioners had confined their grievance to the effect that petitioners should be heard before the OA is decided by the Tribunal and that is why this Court had directed that the Tribunal shall dispose of OA and IAs after hearing the counsel for the parties. Ingenuity of the petitioners is boundless. After obtaining this order, three more IAs were filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal on 26-6-2000. When the matter came up before the Tribunal on 3-7-2000 as per directions contained in order dated 22-6-2000. The counsel for the petitioners herein, however, refused to argue on OA and IAs pending before the Tribunal and submitted that he would argue only the three IAs which were filed on 27-6-2000. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nged before the Appellate Tribunal which was not permissible inasmuch as while dismissing the CM (Main) 414 of 2000 as withdrawn no permission was granted to the petitioners to file any appeal. However, the Appellate Tribunal considered the case on merits as well and did not find any fault with the impugned order dated 3-7-2000 passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. However, while concluding the matter certain observations were made by the Appellate Tribunal with the remarks that the Tribunal may take the same into account before passing final orders in the OA. 7. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the order of the Appellate Tribunal deciding that appeal was not maintainable is not tenable. We will advert to this aspect later in the judgment inasmuch as the Appellate Tribunal had dealt with the matter on merits and we also heard the counsel for both the parties at length and are inclined to dispose of this petition on merits. 8. The main grievance of the petitioners was against refusal on the part of the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to entertain the counter claims of the petitioners. The contention of the learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be filed at the earliest so that it can be tried along with the suit of the plaintiff and no delay is caused in the trial on account of the counter claim. This intention of the Legislature is clearly brought out by sub-section (9) of section 19 of the Act which provides that the counter claim shall have the same effect as the cross-suit and the Tribunal should dispose of both, i.e., the original claim as well as counter claim together. In this connection, due emphasis has to be given to the following words occurring in sub-section (8) "...but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, . . ." These words show that the counter claim ought to be filed at the earliest stage. There is some controversy as to whether these words debar filing of a counter claim after the defence has been delivered or before the time limited for delivering the defence has expired. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Mahendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 1395 and contended that it was permissible for the petitioners to raise counter claims even after filing written statement. On the other hand, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences. If a counter claim is permitted to be set up after the evidence is adduced, it would cause great prejudice to the plaintiff in the suit because at the time of adducing evidence, he will not be aware of the counter-claim, as it will not be on record. Therefore, he cannot be expected to, and he is not required to, adduce evidence having a bearing on the counter-claim. Further allowing the counter-claim to be set up after the evidence is recorded would be doing nothing but ignoring Rules 6A to 6C of Order VIII of the C.P.C. It would also result in protracting the trial and would defeat the very object of treating the counter-claim as a cross-suit and trying the issues arising therefrom along with the issues arising in the suit. The object of this is to avoid delay not only in the trial of the suit but also to decide all the controversies arising between the parties to the suit before filing the written statement or before the last date fixed for filing the written statement inasmuch as by directing the counter claim to be tried along with the main suit, the controversies or the disputes between the parties can be settled in one proceeding. Therefore, even though the Rules do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The issuance of writ under article 226 is discretionary. Petitioners cannot claim the relief as a matter of right. In the facts and circumstances of the case detailed above, we are of the view that petitioners have failed to make up out any case of interference by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. They are not entitled to any discretionary relief in the present facts. The conduct of the petitioners shows that they have tried every tactics to see that disposal of the OA is held up. For this purpose one after other applications are being filed before the Tribunal. We cannot help entertaining a view that the entire exercise in raising the counter claims appears to be mala fide. It is in line with earlier similar attempts of the petitioners. The object of the petitioners is clear. They want to delay the main case by involving the Bank in a fresh trial on the basis of the counter claims. The petitioners are abusing the process of the Court. 15. The result of the above discussion is that we find no merit in the contention of the petitioners that they should be allowed to raise counter claims against the Bank in the OA. 16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
