Cre Torts

COURT
BEFORE THEROOM EXERCISE

DISTRICT 2020
COURT COMPLEX,
LEH, LADAKH
C.S NO._______/2020
-IN THE MATTER OF-
PARAS GUPTA ……PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SEN GUPTA …...DEFENDANT
COURT ROOM EXERCISE
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

pg. 1
DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

COURT ROOM EXERCISE 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
AGRUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Does the present suit by the plaintiff is maintainable before this Hon’ble court?
1.1. SUIT NOT INSTUTED IN PROPER PROCEDURE
1.2. MISJOINDER AND NON JOINDER OF NESSESARY PARTY
1.3. POLICE PROCCEDINGS NOT BE CHALLENGED IN COURT
2. Whether the counter-claim made by the defendant is within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble court?
3. Whether the claims against plaintiff by defendant stand true?
PRAYER
pg. 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& AND
¶ PARAGRAPH
§ SECTION
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
Anr. ANOTHER
C.P.C CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Ed. EDITION
HC HIGH COURT
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER
V. VERSUS
pg. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
S.NO. AUTHOR BOOK EDITION PAGE NO.
01. N.V. Paranjape Code of Criminal 2nd ed., 2006 Passim

Procedure
02. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal Code of Criminal 23rd ed., 2020 Passim
Procedure
03. Kelkar Code of Criminal 6th ed., 2019 Passim
Procedure
04. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal The Law of Torts 28th ed., 2020 Passim
05. R.K.Bangia Law of Torts 24th ed, 2019 Passim
06. Winfield Law of Tort 8th ed, 2008 Passim
07. C.K Takwani Code of Civil 27th ed, 2018 Passim

Procedure
CASE REFFERED.
S.NO. Cause Title Citation Page No.
1. Abdul Majid v. Abdul Rashid AIR 1950 A 201 24.
2. Bansidhar v. United Bank of India AIR 1980 Orissa 19 25.
3. Bhim v. Laxmi AIR 1982 P&H 155 25.
4. Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar [AIR 1984 SC 1043] 12
5. Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar [AIR 1984 SC 1043] 12
6. Brij Kishore Sharma v. Ram Singh AIR 1987 SC 200 21
7. Cofex Exports Ltd. v. Canara Bank AIR 1997 Delhi 355 25
(DB)
8. Deputy Commissioner of Hardoi v. Rama 1987 SCR 90 17
Krishna
9. Dominion of India v. RCKC Nath & Co. . AIR 1950 Cal 207. 14
10. Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India [AIR 1984 SC 1004] 16
11. Gujarat SRTC v. Saroj AIR 2003 Guj. 21 20
12. Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of AIR 1965 SC 1153 22
Gujarat
pg. 4

13. Jag Mohan Chawla v. Dera Radha Swami AIR 1996 SC 2222, 2223 25
Satsang
14. Jehangir v. Secretary of State (1903) ILR 27 Bom 189 14
15. Krishnappa v. Shivappa AIR 2002 BOM 98 19
16. Laxmidas v. Nanabhai AIR 1964 SC 11 24
17. Laxmishankar Hairshankar Bhatt v. Yashram AIR 2008 SC 90 20
Vasta
18. Mohan Lal v. Bhawani Shankar AIR 2002 Raj 144 24
19. Narendra Singh v. Oriental Fire and General AIR 2009 Del. 207 21
Insurance Co. Ltd
20. Oriental Ceramic Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Calcutta AIR 2000 Cal 17 24
Municipal Corpoaration Cal
21. Pravin v. State of Maharashtra 2000 1 SCC 12 20
22. Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht (2010) 12 SCC 204 22
23. Santhanand v. Basu-devanand, (AIR 1930 All 225) 14
(FB)
24. Shanmugham v. Saraswati AIR 1987 Mad. 12 21
25. State of A.P. v. Gundugola Venkata [AIR 1965 SC 11] 15
26. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand 1992 Supp (2) SCC 251 22
Mahajan
27. State of Kerela v. Sudhir Kumar Sharma [(2013) 10 SCC 178 16
28. State of Madras v. C.P. Agency [AIR 1960 SC 1309] 2
29. State of Madras v. C.P. Agency [AIR 1960 SC 1309] 2
30. State of Madras v. Chitturi Venkata [AIR 1957 AP 675] 16
31. State of Maharashtra v. Chander Kant [AIR 1977 SC 148] 16
32. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v Additional AIR 1963 SC 786 22
Member Board of Revenue Bihar
33. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of AIR 1965 SC 786 22
Revenue
34. Union of India v. Shankar Stores AIR 1974 Ori 85. 15
35. Vasant Ambadas v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. [ AIR 1981 Bom 394] 16
STATUES REFFERED.
S.NO STATUTORY COMPLAINCE
01. Code of Civil Procedure
02. Code of Criminal Procedure
03. Indian Penal Code
04. Companies Act.
pg. 5

JOURNALS REFFERED
S.NO JOURNAL
01. ALL INDIA REPORTER
02. SUPREME COURT CASES
03. SUPREME COURT REPORTER
04. ALL ENGLAND LAW REPORTERS
DICTONARIES REFFERED
S.NO. DICTONARY
01. Henry Campbell Black, ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, 6th ed., 1990
WEBSITES REFFERED
S.NO. WEBSITES
01. www.scconline.com
02. www.manupatra.in
03. www.judis.nic.in
04. www.indiankanoon.com
pg. 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Civil Court under Sec - 9 of CPC. The Defendant
humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Civil Court.
The counsel for the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of this
Civil Court which has the power under its jurisdiction under Section 9 of The Civil Procedure
Code to hear the present matter and adjudge accordingly which reads as:
Courts to try all civil suits unless barred – the courts shall (subject to the provisions herein
contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature expecting suits of which their
cognizance is either on expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation1. A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil
nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to
religious rites or ceremonies.
Explanation2. For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in explanation 1 or whether or not such office is attached to
a particular place.
In addition to it the defendant have approached the court in its counter claim suit under Order
VIII Rule 6A
Rule 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 action according to the defendant against the
plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant against the plaintiff
either before or after the filing of the 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 damage or not:
1. 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.
pg. 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mr. Sen Gupta is the resident of Ladakh, India and decides to establish a business of resorts
and fire camps and commences the same.
2. The rival competition of his named as Mr. Paras Gupta who is in the same business and in
the same place. He objects the conduct of business of Mr. Sen Gupta and doubts the clearance
of the business required.
3. As a result of which, Mr. Sen Gupta was stopped by police when he was going for a
commercial transaction on the pretext that he was doing an illegal business.
4. Once the investigation was completed, nothing could be established against Mr. Sen Gupta.
5. However, Mr. Paras Gupta, decides to challenge the investigation proceedings and Mr. Sen
Gupta decides to go for claims hence the present case
pg. 8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
2. Whether the counter-claim made by the defendant is within the jurisdiction of

this Hon’ble court?
pg. 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly submits before this Hon’ble court
that the present suit by plaintiff is not maintainable as it doesn’t come within the
purview of this court.
2. Whether the counter-claim made by the defendant is within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble court?
The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly submits before this Hon’ble court
that this Hon’ble court is empowered with the jurisdiction under Order VIII Rule 6A of
Code of Civil Procedure.
The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly submit before this Hon’ble court
that the claims of Malicious Prosecution, Wrongful Restraint, Defamation, False
Accused stands true.
pg. 10

DOES THE PRESENT SUIT BY THE PLAINTIFF IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THIS HON’BLE COURT?
The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that the
present suit by plaintiff is not maintainable as it doesn’t come within the purview of this court.
The defendant submits a three-fold arguments before this Hon’ble court:

1. No proper procedure followed in instituting the suit.
2. Mis joinder and Non joinder of Necessary party.
3. Police proceeding to not be challenged in the court
1.1 NO PROPER PROCEDURE FOLLOWED.
The counsel submits that whenever a suit is to be initiated in the official capacity of a public
official, specific procedure to be followed by the plaintiff.
Suits by or against the government or public officials in their official capacity is a type of
special cases in the code of civil procedure. Such suits are of a special type because the
procedures which are needed to be followed in the institution of the plaint are different from
the procedures which are to be followed in the civil suits which consists of private parties. For
filing a suit against the government or public official, the plaintiff needs to first serve a legal
notice to the public officer or to the Secretary to the Government.
After the service, the plaintiff needs to wait or two months to file the plaint in the Court. A lot
of formalities and procedures are needed to be taken care of to file the suit. However in certain
situations, the Court may grant an exception, but it depends upon the facts and circumstances.
Sections 79-82 and Order 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 deal with the procedure
which needs to be followed in the process of filing of a suit against the government or public
officials. Code of civil procedures prescribes only the procedures. The rights and liabilities of
the parties are dealt by the Constitution of India, 1950.
The first step in the process of filing of suit in this case is service of notice to the
defendant. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190 states that only after the expiry of
1
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 79-82, Order 21
pg. 11

two months from the date of service of notice to the government officials, a plaint can be filed
in the Court of law.
In the case where the defendant is the Central Government the notice should be served to the
Secretary to the Government, in case the defendant is the Railways the General Manager, in
case of State Government the Secretary to that Government or to the Collector of the District,
in case of public officer the notice should be served to him and in case the defendant is the
State of Jammu and Kashmir the notice should be served to the Chief Secretary of the
Government or any other officer authorized by the government.
The main intention of the Legislative in the insertion of this section and adding this process in
the filing of suit is to make sure that the Government or the Public Officer knows the reasons,
demands or the concern of the Plaintiff for which the suit shall be instituted. By knowing the
distress of the Plaintiff, the Public official can act upon it and rectify the situation. The time
period of two months is also provided for the same reason.
The main objective of government is to serve the public and protect their rights. By providing
the notice along with the necessary time they can give more importance to the problem and
settle the dispute by not approaching the Court. This shall not only save the time of the Court,
but also of the government and the unnecessary legal expenses.2
Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083 also states the contents of the notice which
should be served to the government of the public official. The most essential contents of the
notice should have the name, description, place of residence of the plaintiff and the cause of
action and the relief sought. The service of the notice should be delivered to the office of the
concerned person or served directly to him.
Section 79 and 80 are defined as follows under the Procedure of Civil Code-
2
State of Madras v. C.P. Agency [AIR 1960 SC 1309]
3
Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar [AIR 1984 SC 1043]
pg. 12

Section 79- This Section defines the concept of suits by or against the government: Whenever
a case is filed against a government or if it is filed by the government, the plaintiff and the
defendant who will be named in the case will be as provided under:
• Whenever the case is instituted by or against the central government, the Union of
India will be represented as the required plaintiff or defendant respectively.
• Whenever the suit is filed by or against the state government, the state government
will be required to act as the plaintiff or the defendant.
Section 80- This section deals with the concept of Notice. According to this Section, there
exists no onus for the institution of a suit against the government without issuing a notice
regarding the same, this includes the state of Jammu and Kashmir. With respect to institution
of a suit against a public officer with respect to the act done by him in his official capacity,
there is again a need for issuance of notice regarding the same. Further, the notice should be
served two months prior to the institution of the suit and it should be made sure that such a
notice was delivered or left at the office of:
• Whenever the case is against the central government, and it does not relate to the
railways then, the notice should be delivered to the secretary of the government.
• Whenever a case has been instituted against the central government and it relates to
the railways then, the notice is to be served to the general manager of that
railways.
• Whenever the case is instituted against any of the state governments then, the notice
is to be served either to the secretary to that government or to the collector of the
district.
Scope of Section 79
For the purpose of better understanding of Section 79 of Civil Procedure Code, there arises a
need for further fragmentation of the Section into various subtopics like that of the jurisdiction
of Section 79 and the institution of suit against the railways which will be looked into in the
next part of this article.
pg. 13

Section 79
Section 79 lays down the procedure whereby the suits are brought by or against the government
but at the same time, it does not deal with the rights and liabilities enforceable by or against
the government body4.
In the case of Jehangir v. Secretary of State 5, an important observation was made which was
that this section gives no cause of action but only declares the mode of the procedure when the
cause of action arises.
Jurisdiction
Under Section 79, only the court within whose local limits, the cause of action arose, has the
jurisdiction to try the suit and otherwise it cannot. In the case of Dominion of India v. RCKC
Nath & Co.6, it was held that words like ‘dwell’ or ‘reside’ or ‘carry on business’ which are
mentioned in Section 18, 19 and 20 of code, do not apply to the government7.
Section 80
This part of the article will include under its ambit the detailed analysis of Section 80 of Civil
Procedure Code, and for the purpose of better understanding, the subtopics are to be studied by
breaking them down under the Section of nature and liability, contents of the notice, effect of
non-compliance and waiver of notice.
4
AIR 1930 All 225 (FB)
5
(1903) ILR 27 Bom 189
6
AIR 1950 Cal 207.
7
Devika, Section 79 CPC detailed, The SCC Online Blog https://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/10/05/order-27-
rule-5-cpc-mandates-the-court-to-ensure-disputes-concerning-public-undertakings-are-resolved-amicably-
arbitrator-appointed-therefor-sc/.
pg. 14

Nature and Object
The object laid down by this Section is- there should be an opportunity conferred on the part
of the Secretary of the State or the Public officer to reconsider his legal position in order to
make amends or settle down the claim if so advised. This can further be done without litigation
or afford restitution or without recourse to court of law. Whenever a statutory notice is issued
to public authorizes, they are required to further take notice in all seriousness and they are not
required to sit over it and force the citizen to the redundancy of litigation.
Contents of the Notice
Notice under Section 80, is required to contain the following aspects: name, description,
residence of the plaintiff, the cause of action and lastly the relief which the plaintiff claims.
Also, the notice is required to convey to its recipients, sufficient information to enable him to
consider the claim, which was held in Union of India v. Shankar Stores 8. The above-
mentioned particulars should be given in such a way that, it enables the authorities to identify
the person giving the notice.
After the expiry of two months if the aggrieved party wishes to file the suit in the Court of law,
he or she would need to produce a written statement which should state the way in which the
notice was served. The service of the notice has a strict application and is mandatory process.
It should be done expressly and not impliedly. The Supreme Court had held so in the case
of State of A.P. v. Gundugola Venkata9 and also expressed that if proper service of the notice
does not happen then the suit would entail a dismissal.
8
AIR 1974 Ori 85.
9
State of A.P. v. Gundugola Venkata [AIR 1965 SC 11]
pg. 15

However this statute should be reasonably construed and should be interpreted by looking at
the objective of it. Mere error not affecting the objective of it should not result in dismissal of
the plaint.10
The notice should comply with the minimum requirements according to the statute. If the case
is against a public officer and the relief is prayed for an act which the officer will have to do in
near future, proper service of notice becomes mandatory11. The sentence act to be done by the
Public Officer includes those acts which can be done in his Official capacity. It does not include
acts which are beyond his or her official capacity12.
The service of notice is of a procedural form and it is not a substantive statute. The object of
the service of notice is to make sure that the government is aware of the problems of the
Plaintiff and the course of action which he intends for. The service of notice is for the benefit
of the government and it is upon the government to take support of it. If the government does
not require the service and expresses it, the Court may allow the plaint without the service of
notice. However this totally depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case13
Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1970 allows private individuals to file a suit
against the government without serving the notice to the public officer if the matter is of an
urgent nature14 This section acts as an exception for sub-section 1 of Section 80 of the Act. The
main objective of inserting this exception is to make sure that miscarriage of justice does not
happen in urgent cases by delay in the proceedings. The urgency of the matter is judged by the
Court by considering the facts and circumstances. The Court should hear both the private
individual and the government in judging whether the matter is of an urgent nature.
After filing of suit against the government, the plaint and the written statement should be signed
by a person appointed by the government. The person should be authorized and be a recognized
10
Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India [AIR 1984 SC 1004]
11
State of Madras v. Chitturi Venkata [AIR 1957 AP 675]
12
State of Maharashtra v. Chander Kant [AIR 1977 SC 148]
13
Vasant Ambadas v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. [ AIR 1981 Bom 394]
14
State of Kerela v. Sudhir Kumar Sharma [(2013) 10 SCC 178
pg. 16

agent according to the Code. The agent shall have the power to receive summons and the
government does not need to attach the Vakalatnama.
A proper and reasonable time is given to the Government to file the Written Statement and in
every suit against the government the court needs to assist the government in coming to a
settlement with the private individual. The procedure under Order 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908
Effect of Non-Compliance
Non-compliance with the requisites of this Section or any omission in the plaint which is
required would result in the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11. If the suit is against
a public official and a private individual, and no notice is served on the public officer, the plaint
is not to be rejected but the suit is carried on with the name of the public officer struck off.
Challenging of investigation proceeding is not a civil matter rather is to be done before the
magistrate under CrPc and only damages and civil remedies could be sought under section 9
of CPC and thus the court has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Hence this court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear this matter.
1.2 NON JOINDER/ MIS JOINDER OF NESSESARY PARTY
The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that there is no cause of action against
this defendant and so the suit is to dismissed for want of cause of action.
Since the matter is criminal in nature, this court cannot perform the direction that has been
sought for by the plaintiff and owing to legal impossibility the suit deserves to be dismissed15
The defendant even after court’s direction it would be legally and physically impossible to
reopen investigation or perhaps with any matter relation to it as defendant or the counsel is not
representing Police Department.
Court would not venture in deciding into such suits which are legally impossible to perform
and hence dismiss it.
The defendant are legally impossible to perform any order of court in relation to investigation
proceedings as the defendant is the person against whom investigation took place.
The counsel on behalf of defendant submits that there has been mis joinder and non-joinder of
necessary party.
The suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary party and is fatal to the proceedings.
15
it is hit by specific relief act sec 14
pg. 17

Sec80 has not been served and on that score itself the suit deserves to be dismissed since it is
mandatory requirement.
The necessary party to the suit is The department of Police as, they’re the one against whom
the cause of action stands
The plaintiff must include necessary parties and proper parties in the plaint. A necessary party
is a person who is essential to the constitution of the case and without his appearance the case
cannot be decreed. Whereas, a proper party is an interested party whose appearance is
dispensable if the court permits. In the absence of a proper party, the court can issue effective
orders. But at the time of passing of the final decree, the appearance of both, necessary party
and proper party, is essential.
Plaintiff and defendant are necessary parties as they are directly related to the suit. However, a
third party to the suit who has an interest in the suit but is not directly involved in it would be
the proper party and not a necessary party.
If the number of the defendant is more than 1, the plaintiff can join the defendants in a single
suit provided that the right to relief is arising out of the same transaction or series of acts. In
that case, the defendants will jointly and severally liable.
The parties can raise an object on the following grounds:
1. Right of the opposite party has not been violated by the objecting party but by some
other person whose appearance is necessary to decide the suit but has not been made
a party to the suit.
2. Right of the opposite party has been violated by the objecting party but such
violation is not forming part of the same transaction or series of acts.
For example, A gets into a contract separately with B, C, D for the supply of goods,
and B, C, D fails to supply such goods. Now, A cannot join B, C & D in a single
suit because he has contracted with each one of them separately. Hence, their
contracts do not form part of the same transaction. If A does so, B, C & D can raise
the objection of misjoinder of the party.
pg. 18

If the defendant has not violated rights of the plaintiff or has violated but such violation does
not form part of the same transaction or series of acts, the defendant can take objection on
account of misjoinder of the party and such objection should be taken at the earliest opportunity
available. (Order 1 rule 13)
The defendant or co-plaintiff can take of objection if the cause of action is not arising in the
same transaction or there is no common question of law involved.
Civil Law represents an individuals private right of action for redress. A civil suit (also referred
to as a civil proceeding or simply suit) is a process for recovery of an individual right or redress
of an individual wrong. The essential requirements of any civil suit, according to the decision
of the Bombay High Court in Krishnappa v. Shivappa16 are the opposing parties, the subject
matter in dispute, the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff. For the purposes
of the project, we shall be concerned only with the opposing parties.
The opposing parties quite logically would refer to the plaintiff and the defendant. Since civil
law deals with only those rights that are private in nature, legal action for enforcing the same
can be initiated only by he whose civil rights have been violated. Thus, there has to be a plaintiff
in civil suits. The plaintiff would demand relief from the person who has violated his civil
rights, the defendant. The parties to a suit shall be either on the side of the plaintiff or the
defendant. What has to be considered is to what extent should parties be joined to a suit. In this
connection, the Code provides for compulsory joinder of all those parties necessary for the
court to decide the suit, and consequently grant relief to the plaintiff.
A necessary party is a party without impleading whom a claim cannot be legally settled by
court. In other words, in the absence of a necessary party, no effective and complete decree can
be passed by the court. There is no standard for determining who are the necessary parties to a
suit. This shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, in a suit
filed against a public servant in relation to his public functions, the government shall have to
be impleaded but in a suit filed against the same person in relation to his not paying
maintenance to his divorced wife, the government shall not be a necessary party.
In the absence of a necessary party, no order can be effectively passed by the court.
However, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be passed; whose
presence is not needed for a complete and effective adjudication..
Although there is no definite test to be applied in this connection, the tests that have been laid
down in Deputy Commissioner of Hardoi v. Rama Krishna,17 are as follows:
16
AIR 2002 BOM 98
17
1987 SCR 90
pg. 19

1. There has to be a right of relief against such a party in respect of the matters involved
in the suit.
2. The court must not be in a position to pass an effective decree in the absence of such a
party.
Generally, a party from whom no relief is sought is not a necessary party. In Pravin v. State
of Maharashtra,18 the government bought a plot of land under a statute, and afterwards, sold
it to the appellant. The sale was declared invalid by the Supreme Court. The original owner
sought relief. It was held that the party which had purchased the plot of land from the
government was not a necessary party, because no relief was claimed from it. In Gujarat
SRTC v. Saroj19, the legal representatives of the deceased driver of a car which collided with
a SRTC bus, claimed compensation from the SRTC. In the present suit, it was held that the
owner of the car and its insurer were not necessary parties since no relief had been claimed
from them. Thus, the nature of relief claimed is important in deciding who is a necessary party.
Necessary parties are essentially those parties from whom the plaintiff has claimed relief, not
those parties from whom he may claim relief. Proper parties need not be impleaded. Therefore,
if complete and effective relief can be claimed by the plaintiff from some parties, there is no
need to join other parties since other parties are not necessary parties.
The absence of necessary parties means those parties from whom relief is being claimed are
not present, due to which the court cannot pass any effective decree. In such circumstances, the
suit can but does not have to be dismissed. If found legally justifiable, the court should grant
the relief being claimed by the plaintiff by passing a decree between the parties actually before
it, so long as that can be done legally and effectively. The defendant can plead non - joinder of
parties by the plaintiff. However, he shall have to specify who those parties are and what their
interest is in the suit. The defendant has to claim a non-joinder of parties at the earliest, in the
written statement. However, he is also required to specify who are the parties who he wants
should be impleaded, and the rights claimed by them. Should he only give a vague statement
in this respect, it is not sufficient to dismiss the suit on the ground of non-joinder of parties. In
the present suit, the plaintiff claimed a recovery of possession. The original owner passed away
leaving four sons, of whom one son passed away. That son came to be substituted by his son.
The sale deed was executed by Gopaljis sons and his grandson. The appellant took the stand
that he intended to purchase the entire right, title and interest in the suit property. The defendant
contended that in the absence of the owner the plaintiffs suit is not maintainable and should be
dismissed. The Supreme Court however refused to dismiss the suit on the grounds of non-
joinder of parties since his plea relating to non-joinder was found to be vague. The court also
upheld an important legal principle - in a suit claiming property, until and unless all the other
co-owners are not impleaded, the suit shall not be maintainable. (In Laxmishankar
Hairshankar Bhatt v. Yashram Vasta )20
The general principle of law is that the plea of non-joinder should be raised at the earliest
available opportunity. However, an exception is partition suits, in which the plea of non-joinder
of parties can be raised at any point of time. The reason for this, as laid down in Shanmugham
18
2000 1 SCC 12
19
AIR 2003 Guj. 21
20
AIR 2008 SC 90
pg. 20

v. Saraswati21 is that this materially affects the subject - matter involved in the suit.
The law however only assists the plaintiff on this point. So if he persistently refuses to implead
proper parties, the courts shall act contrary to the and dismiss the suit. In a civil suit it is the
plaintiff who has to claim relief. However, he has to implead the necessary parties to a suit.
Should he refuse to do so even after an objection is raised in this connection, the suit will be
dismissed.
Rules 9 and 10 of Order 1 are essentially complementary in nature. The latter inter alia deals
with the addition of parties to a suit, by which the court can on its own or by an application by
any of the parties order a party to be joined as plaintiff or defendant if it feels its "presence may
be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and
settle all the questions involved in the suit. " By invoking this fairly widely worded provision,
the court can order any of the necessary or even proper parties to be joined. The main advantage
herein is that it confers upon the court to rectify a situation in which the plaintiff has failed to
join the necessary parties, instead of dismissing the suit. Moreover, the addition of parties to a
suit can take place at any point of time. But the defendant should not be likely to be prejudiced
by this. In other words, this should not affect him in preparing for his defense; otherwise it
denies him a fair trial, guaranteed to him under the Constitution. The plaint shall have to
however be amended to this extent, but that is only a procedural requirement. The court also
has the inherent jurisdiction to add or delete parties from the suit, which it may do at any point
of time. Thus, the court may save a suit if due to a bona fide mistake it is instituted in the name
of the wrong plaintiff, or it is not certain whether it has been instituted in the name of the right
plaintiff. However, being a general provision, it cannot override specific ones. For instance,
the Representation of Peoples' Act enjoins the penalty of dismissal of an election petition for
non-joinder of parties. So the court cannot override this provision by invoking Order 1, Rule
10.
The plea of non-joinder has to be pressed at the earliest opportunity in the trial court. It may
also be taken in the appellate court, but cannot be successfully raised in the second appeal. The
underlying logic is procedural defects in a suit should be checked at the earliest. To this extent,
the plaint may be amended. If the defendant does not object to non-joinder of parties in the
written statement, it will be deemed that he is not interested in objecting. Essentially procedural
in nature, it shall not apply to determine the substantive rights of parties. Holding that joinder
or non-joinder of parties is too technical, it was held that this shall not operate to deny a person
any benefit under any enactment. In Narendra Singh v. Oriental Fire and General
Insurance Co. Ltd.22, Delhi, the benefit of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act was extended
to the plaintiff even though the suit suffered from a non-joinder of parties. At the same time,
non-joinder should not be construed too liberally; otherwise the parties shall stand to lose. If a
partnership firm against another firm files a suit, all the partners have to be impleaded as
plaintiffs but not their legal representatives. For this reason, in Brij Kishore Sharma v. Ram
Singh23, the Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the trial court, held that the suit is not
maintainable. Pending the suit, one of the parties died and his legal representatives were not
21
AIR 1987 Mad. 12
22
AIR 2009 Del. 207
23
AIR 1987 SC 200
pg. 21

brought on record. In the opinion of the court, the legal representatives should have been
brought on record.
A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is
one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a
complete and final decision on the question involved in this proceeding.24
The Apex Court deals with the concept of necessary parties and the effect of non-impleadment
of such a party in the matter when the selection process is assailed.25
The Court has explained the distinction between necessary party, proper party and proforma
party and further held that if a person who is likely to suffer from the order of the court and has
not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice.26
More so, proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that non-
joinder of necessary party be fatal.27
Non-impleadment of the necessary party was fatal to the writ petition.28
1.3 POLICE PROCEEDINGS NOT TO BE CHALLENGED.

The Supreme Court ruled on September 5, 2019 that investigation into crimes is
a "prerogative" of the police and the courts should not interfere in its every stage. The top
court said that a court’s interference at each stage would affect the normal course of the
investigation.
The investigation of a cognizable offence and the following stages including the interrogation
of the accused is exclusively reserved for the investigating agency whose powers are
unregulated as long as the investigating officer exercises his investigating powers within the
provisions of the law and the legal bounds.
Courts can interfere and issue directions only when it is convinced that the power of
investigating officer is "exercised mala fide" or there is an abuse of power and non-compliance
of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
An investigation into crimes is the prerogative of the police, excepting in rare cases, and the
judiciary should keep out all the areas of investigation.
There is a well-defined and demarcated function in the field of investigation and its subsequent
adjudication.
If the court interferes in every stage of the investigation, it would affect the normal course of
the investigation. The investigating agency should get to decide on how to proceed with the
interrogation of the accused and the nature of questions put to him and the manner of
interrogation.
It is open for the courts to quash the proceedings where there is a clear case of abuse of power
by the investigating officer.
A balance is required to be established between the two rights, safeguarding the personal liberty
of an individual and the societal interest.
24
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786
25
Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204
26
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1965 SC 786
27
Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153
28
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 251
pg. 22

WHETHER THE COUNTER CLAIM BY THE DEFENDANT IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT?
The counsel for defendant humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that the counter claim is
within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.
Section 9, CPC, provides that every civil court has a jurisdiction to try any matter of civil nature
unless it is expressly or impliedly barred.
Jurisdiction of the civil court depends on two important conditions:
Firstly, the suit must be of civil nature. The expression “civil nature” has not been defined by
the code. In Black’s Legal Dictionary the expression “civil” is defined as “relating to private
rights of an individual or corporation and remedies sought in a civil proceeding as contrasted
with criminal proceedings’. In law, it is understood as an antonym of criminal.
Historically the two broad classifications of the law were civil law and criminal law. Revenue,
tax and company etc, were added to it later. But they too pertain to the larger family of ‘civil’.
There is thus no doubt about the width of the word ‘civil’.
The scope of the section has been stretched by adding the word nature along with civil which
means that the court has the power to hear not only those suits which are “civil” but also the
suits which are of “civil nature”. The term “nature” has been defined as “the fundamental
qualities of a man or thing, identity or essential character.” The section will be available to all
suits which are not only civil but of civil nature.
Courts in India treat counterclaims as a plaint in a cross-suit. Counterclaims are a claim bought
against the Plaintiff by the Defendant in a lawsuit. It is typically filed as part of a Defendant's
answer to the original claim. Counterclaim can contain a variety of material ranging from
accusation of fraudulent activity to claims which would pre-empt any attempt at suit. The goal
of counterclaim is to turn the table on the plaintiff by bringing up more issues in the case and
demanding redress.
Rule 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 action according to the defendant against the
plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant against the plaintiff
either before or after the filing of the 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 damage or not:
1. 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.
pg. 23

4. The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to
plaints.
The effect of this rule is from the point of view of pleading to assimilate a counter-claim with
a plaint in a suit and is therefore governed by the same rules of pleading as a plaint. A counter-
claim is substantially a cross-action, not merely a defence to the plaintiff's claim. It must be of
such a nature that the court would have jurisdiction to entertain it as a separate action.
The rights granted to the defendants to set up counter claim are not only limited for the claim
put forth by the plaintiff in a suit itself, and even the cause of action need not be the same; there
is nothing in Order VIII, Rule 6 or 6A, CPC restricting the nature of relief which the defendants
might seek in the counter claim29. The essence of a counter claim is that defendant should have
an independent cause of action in the nature of a cross action and not merely a defence to the
plaintiff's claim30. Where the defendant pays into court the full amount of plaintiff's claim but
denies liability to a portion thereof, the plea cannot be agitated in the suit.
The crucial date for determining when the plaint in a cross suit should be treated as having been
filed is not the date when the conversion is ordered, but the date on which the written statement,
containing the counter claim is filed31.
Limitation for counter- claim- Order VIII, rules 6A to 6G may not prescribe any period of
limitation for filing of a counter-claim, but in view of Order 8, rule A (4), read with Order VII,
Rule 11(d) and S. 3(2) (b) of the Limitation Act, it can be said that there is a time limit for
filing a counter-claim and the time limit is what is prescribed by the law of limitation in relation
to that particular counter-claim. If it appears from the statements made in the application
wherein the counter-claim is set up that it is barred by the law of limitation, the counter claim
would be liable to rejection32.
SET-OFF AND COUNTER CLAIM- COMMON FEATURES
1. None should exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court;
2. Both are pleaded in the written statement, if the law governing the court permits such
plea being raised by the defendant in the written statement;
3. The plaintiff is expected to file a written statement in answer to claim for set off or to a
counter claim;
4. Even if permitted to be raised, the court may in appropriate cases direct a set off or
counter claim being tried separately;
5. A defendant cannot be compelled to plead a set off nor a counter claim: he may as well
maintain an independent action for enforcing the claim forming subject matter of set-
off or counter claim;
6. Both are liable to pay court-fee;
29
Mohan Lal v. Bhawani Shankar, AIR 2002 Raj 144
30
Abdul Majid v. Abdul Rashid AIR 1950 A 201
31
Laxmidas v. Nanabhai AIR 1964 SC 11
32
Oriental Ceramic Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Calcutta Municipal Corpoaration Cal AIR 2000 Cal 17
pg. 24

7. Dismissal of suit or its withdrawal would not debar a set off or counter claim being tried
may be followed by a decree against the plaintiff33.
Rule 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.
Rule 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.
There is no jurisdiction to exclude a counter claim merely on the ground that in the
circumstances security cannot be ordered to be given by the defendants, though it has been
ordered against plaintiffs. The fact that the defendant cannot bring an independent action is not
a sufficient ground for refusing to strike out a counter claim. In a suit for injunction, the
defendant can plead counter-claim for injunction in respect of the same suit property or a
different property based on a different cause of action is maintainable34.
Only application for counter-claim but adjustment is not maintainable under r 6C35.
Rule 6D. Effect of discontinuance of suit

If in any case in which the defendant sets up a counterclaim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed,
discontinued or dismissed, the counter-claim may nevertheless be proceeded with.
This further illustrates the principle that a counter-claim is to be treated as a cross action, and
is not affected by anything which relates solely to the plaintiff's claim. Thus, where the plaintiff
discontinues action the counter-claim has been served, he cannot prevent the defendant from
enforcing against him the causes of action contained in the counter-claim. So if an action is
dismissed being frivolous, the counter claim is not affected and the defendant may be granted
the relief which he seeks thereby. In a suit for eviction even if landlord wants to discontinue
the suit or get it stayed or dismissed the counter claim by the tenant in respect of rent can
nevertheless be proceeded with36.
33
Cofex Exports Ltd. v. Canara Bank AIR 1997 Delhi 355 (DB)
34
Jag Mohan Chawla v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang AIR 1996 SC 2222,2223
35
Bansidhar v. United Bank of India AIR 1980 Orissa 19
36
Bhim v. Laxmi AIR 1982 P&H 155
pg. 25

WHETHER THE CLAIMS BY THE DEFENDANT AGAINST PLAINTIFF

STANDS TRUE?
I. DEFAMATION
a. Publication
1. As noted by the moot proposition, the objection made by Mr. Paras Gupta about our
business was defamatory as was published that it was spoken or distributed to at least
one other person other than the defendant.
b. False Statement
2. As per the fact sheet the false statement made by the plaintiffs regarding the illegal
business which was been carried by the defendants was not true and hence the
defendants claims injunction restraining the plaintiff for making false statements. In
case of the tort of injurious falsehood, the false statement made may not lower the
injured person in the estimation of others but it may affect him in his business.37
3. It has harmed the reputation of our business and hence we hold that in a civil action for
defamation there is absolute privilege for a statement made in a pleading was proven
wrong by the investigation proceedings already.
c. The statement was made by the plaintiff to defendant

4. In the case of Hindustan Gilt Jewel Works vs Chilamkurti Gangayya (Died) And Ors38
In this case the respondents have filed a case stating the damages for defamation caused by the
plaintiff. The parties were rival traders and carry on business within few miles of one another.
Further it was held that statement complained of by the respondents was not entirely irrelevant
and therefore is privileged.
Plaintiffs have defamed us intentionally, knowingly and deliberately because they are rival
businessmen also he was later unable to establish the cause of action as against us.
d. Defamatory statement
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Surendra Nath Sinha vs. Bageshwari Pd39
had discussed the law on defamation in full length and observed as under:
"A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to
whom it refer; which tends; that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right -thinking
members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be shunned or avoided or
regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem, or to convey on
imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or
business. Defamation, therefore, is the wrong done by a person to another's reputation by
words, signs or visible representations
37
Villa Moda General Trading Co. vs Chordia Fashions Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (3) BomCR 41
38
(1943) 1 MLJ 186
39
AIR 1961 Pat 164
pg. 26

6. With the above-mentioned case it can be stated that because the plaintiff has objected
the clearances of the business it has caused loss to the business and because of which
when police men stopped with no proof that defendant are running an illegal business
has caused mental pain and agony to the defendant and huge losses to his business.
Thus, Counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that the claim of defamation is true
as per the facts and defendant has faced serious loss in business due to bad mouthing of
plaintiff’s false complaint to the police about business and shall be held liable to pay damages
and compensation to restore the status quo for the same and publish in daily newspaper that the
accusation thrown by them was not true.
II Malicious Prosecution
a. Prosecution by Defendants
1. The Defendants information about plaintiff’s accusation was false to his own knowledge.
Defendants tried to influence police to arrest innocence person also defendants and actuated
police to start investigation40.
2. In Gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh41 it was held that where a complaint is based on a false
charge knowingly misleads the police and sends innocent man for trial he shall be regarded
as the real prosecutor, although the real prosecution is by the police- he shall be liable for
damages.
3. Mere giving information to police and inducing them to launch investigation will not
constitute prosecution but taking further active part thereafter in prosecution of plaintiff
will amount to prosecution- even though he may not himself figured as the complainant in
the criminal court42.
b. The Proceeding Terminated in Plaintiff’s favour

4. With respect to the proposition it has already been mentioned that the decision was made
in the favour of the plaintiff as per the investigation reports and thus the plaintiff proved
himself innocence.
c. Absence of Reasonable and Probable cause

5. As rightly observed in Jamandas V. Chunnilal43 it was held that accused is guilty must be
based on grounds, all or some of which are arrived after due enquiry.
6. Also, the challenged investigation proceeding shall not be entertained as there no
reasonable and probable cause.
40
Hazoor Singh v. Jang Singh, AIR 1973 Raj. 82
41
(1905) 35 IA Ker. 264
42
Ramesh Chandra Singh v. Jagannath Singh, AIR 1975 Ori. 12
43
(1920)
pg. 27

d. Instituted with Malicious Intention

7. The plaintiff has done the act intentionally, without just cause, only to cause harm to the
reputation of the business of the defendants.
e. Suffered Damage to Reputation, Property or Person

8. It was already stated in Saville v. Roberts44 that damages can be of 3 types, (i) damage to
reputation. (ii) damage to person, (iii) Damage to property.
9. It is very much clear that damage to the business reputation and to the person i.e. the
defendant has been caused by the false statement of the plaintiff.
10. Thus defendant humbly submits before the Hon’ble court that since the offense of illegal
business is non cognizable it is primae facie that there has been a charge sheet filed before
starting of investigation and hence when after investigation, defendant was cleared of all
charges. Hence there was malicious prosecution.
f. Malicious Falsehood
4. The term Malicious Falsehood is more specifically wrong towards a persons’ business
reputation. A malicious statement was made by the plaintiffs by doubting on the
clearances of the business due to which the police men stopped in the public while
defendants was on it’s way for commercial transactions and made due to which
defendants lost few customers and thus there was a pecuniary loss to the defendants.
b. Slander of title
5. The false and malicious statement about a person’s property or business
and might not necessarily be related to his personal reputation, but is
related to his title to property, his business and ultimately such false
statements had ultimately depreciated the value of good of the defendant
III Damnum Sine Injuria
1. The rights of the defendant are not been violated but still the damage is cause to the
defendant.
44
(1795) EngR 3039
pg. 28

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited the counsel humbly pray on behalf of the Defendant before this Hon’ble court that it
may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The challenging of investigation proceedings is not maintainable

2. The court has the jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim by defendant.
3. The plaintiff has caused defamation, wrongful restraint, malicious prosecution,
False accused, malicious falsehood.
4. The defendants are entitled for Rs.1,50,00,000/- in form of all damages and
compensation from plaintiffs
5. The plaintiff publish a statement in daily newspaper retracting the statement
made to the police.
Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and good
conscience. And for this act of kindness your lordship the defendant shall as duty bound ever
pray.
Place: Ladakh
Date: 3rd October, 2020
Respectfully Submitted,
S/d _________ Counsel(s) for the Defendant
pg. 29

Cre Torts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cre Torts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COURT

BEFORE THEROOM EXERCISE

-IN THE MATTER OF-

PARAS GUPTA ……PLAINTIFF

SEN GUPTA …...DEFENDANT

COURT ROOM EXERCISE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

3. Whether the claims against plaintiff by defendant stand true?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

C.P.C CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

S.NO. AUTHOR BOOK EDITION PAGE NO.

01. N.V. Paranjape Code of Criminal 2nd ed., 2006 Passim

05. R.K.Bangia Law of Torts 24th ed, 2019 Passim

06. Winfield Law of Tort 8th ed, 2008 Passim

07. C.K Takwani Code of Civil 27th ed, 2018 Passim

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

2. Whether the counter-claim made by the defendant is within the jurisdiction of

3. Whether the claims against plaintiff by defendant stand true?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

3. Whether the claims against plaintiff by defendant stand true?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

DOES THE PRESENT SUIT BY THE PLAINTIFF IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

The defendant submits a three-fold arguments before this Hon’ble court:

1.1 NO PROPER PROCEDURE FOLLOWED.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

Nature and Object

Contents of the Notice

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

1.2 NON JOINDER/ MIS JOINDER OF NESSESARY PARTY

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

The parties can raise an object on the following grounds:

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

1.3 POLICE PROCEEDINGS NOT TO BE CHALLENGED.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WHETHER THE COUNTER CLAIM BY THE DEFENDANT IS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

SET-OFF AND COUNTER CLAIM- COMMON FEATURES

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

Rule 6B. Counter-claim to be stated

Rule 6C. Exclusion of counter-claim

Rule 6D. Effect of discontinuance of suit

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

WHETHER THE CLAIMS BY THE DEFENDANT AGAINST PLAINTIFF

c. The statement was made by the plaintiff to defendant

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

b. The Proceeding Terminated in Plaintiff’s favour