IJM Corporation Berhad v. M/s Lakshmi Sai Constructions Company
Background
When the defendant filed its written statement in the underlying suit, it mentioned a counter-claim but, lacking funds to pay the required court fee, asked the trial court to take only the written statement on record, meaning the counter-claim itself was never formally registered. Roughly four years later, after the plaintiff's evidence had already closed, the defendant applied to pay the court fee and have the counter-claim taken on record; the trial court allowed this, and the High Court affirmed. The appellant-plaintiff challenged this, arguing it was unfair to revive a counter-claim so late in the proceedings.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that since no counter-claim had ever actually been placed on record (only the written statement was accepted), there was nothing existing that could later be "cured" by simply paying a fee: the proper course would have been an application to amend the written statement to formally raise the counter-claim, incorporating it as new pleading. But by the time the fee-payment application was made, the trial had already concluded, and Order VI Rule 17 CPC bars amendments introducing new claims after trial has commenced unless the party shows it could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence, which the defendant never pleaded or proved (financial incapacity alone was not sufficient and was not proved either). The Court found no reason to sustain the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, directing that the suit proceed without the counter-claim.
Lesson Learnt
A litigant who cannot afford court fees on a counter-claim at the time of filing should promptly seek the court's permission to defer payment or formally amend pleadings, waiting years, until after the trial's evidence has closed, to revive an unregistered counter-claim will not be allowed.