Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3347 = 1975 SLD 3347 = 1975 PLD 1047
Lahore High Court
R. S. A. No. 101 of 1962, decided on 15th January 1974.
Presented By: Aftab Hussain, J
Khalid 1qbal for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondent.

REPUBLIC OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY HIGH COMMISSIONER, LAHORE-Appellant

VERSUS

MESSRS CHIRAGH DIN & Co.-Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXI, rr. 18, 19, 20, O. VIII, r. 6, 156

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXI, rr. 18, 19 & 20 and O. VIII, r. 6 & S. 151-Set off-Set off of decrees-Apart from provisions of O. XXI, ff. 18, 19 & 20 set off could be claimed by or allowed to judgment-debtor-Money decree barred by time, however, cannot be set-off. Where the questions for consideration were: whether apart from the provisions of O. XXI, rr. 18, 19 & 20, C. P. C. setoff of decree in one's own favour could be claimed by or allowed to judgment-debtor and (ii); whether the amount of a time-barred decree can be allowed to be set-off. Held: On general principles and in the exercise of its inherent power Court can give effect to a claim if it does not come within the strict term, of O. XXI, rule 19, C. P. C. These principles have been extended not only to cases under Order XXI, rules 18 and 19, C. P. C. but also to the cases of Order VIII, rule 6, C. P. C. and Order XX, rule 6, C. P. C. It has been consistently held that set-off can be claimed under Order VIII, rule 6, C. P. C. but these provisions are not exhaustive and where the cross demand of the defendant arises out of the same transaction, equitable set-off can be claimed apart from the provisions of Order VIII, rule 6, C. P. C. The provisions for set-off have been made in the Code of Civil Procedure in Order VIII, rule 6, Order XXI, rules 18, 19 and 20 and Order XX, rule 6. If it can be held that Order VIII, rule 6 and Order XX, rule 6 are not exhaustive and equitable set-off can be allowed, there is no reason why equity should not work to the advantage of a person holding a cross-decree in a case where the strict provisions of rules 18, 19 and 20 are not applicable. The preponderance of the authorities is in favour of the invocation of the equitable doctrine of inherent jurisdiction of the Court to cases of set-off which are not governed strictly by Order XXI, rules 18 and 19, C. P. C. Rule 18 of Order XXI, C. P. C. provides for setoff where both the decrees are being executed before the Court. It contemplates that both the decrees must be executable. Similarly, Order VIII, rule 6, C. P. C. also provides that legal set-off can be claimed only in regard to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register