' The facts giving rise to this revision are that Hakam Khan petitioner instituted a suit against the Town Committee Havelian (respondent) for the recovery of Rs.2,33,500 as the amount due from the defendant on account of the cost of construction of a certain road. In the written statement filed by the'defendant on 17-5-1983 there was no prayer for claiming set-off. However, on 7-7-1983 the defendant submitted an application seeking permission of the Court to file an amended written Statement claiming set-off in the suit. The application was resisted by the plaintiff but the learned trial Court accepted the application on 18-3-1984 on payment of Rs.100 as costs and the defendant was allowed to submit an amended written statement. In the amended written statement dated 3- 4-1984 the defendant claimed a sum of Rs.1,47,541.30 as set-off against the plaintiff. The said order of allowing the defendant to claim set-off is impugned in the revision-petition.
2. In support of the revision it is contended that the set-off was not claimed at the first hearing of the suit and no particulars of the amount claimed as set-off were given and instead a lump sum of Rs.1,47,541.30 has been claimed in the written statement. It is also contended that the parties did not fill the same character as they fill in the plaintiff's suit because the set-off was claimed regarding some other contract between the parties, and, therefore, the claim to set-off did not arise from the same transaction. There is no force in either of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt the set-off was not claimed at the first hearing of the suit but under the provisions of Order VIII, rule 6, C.P.C. the Court had the power to allow the defendant to claim set-off even at a subsequent stage and the necessary permission was accorded in this regard by the trial Court. The basic characters of the parties to the suit are that of debtor and crditor and it would make no difference. if the plaintiff sued on the basis of one contract and the defendant claimed set-off in regard to another contract between the same parties. The set-off has been claimed in regard to an ascretained amount of Rs.1,47,541:30 allegedly outstanding against the plaintiff. A right to set-off exists not only in cases of mutual credits and debits but also where cross demands arise and they are so intimately connected in their nature that it would not be equitable to force the defendant to file a separate suit. The plaintiff is a contractor and the amount in suit has been claimed on the basis of a contract entered into between the parties. He would, therefore, be liable to account for the dues outstanding against him on account of some other contract entered into by him with the defendant. Thus, it would not be equitable to compell the defendant to file a cross-suit against the plaintiff. The provisions of Order VIII, rule 6, C.P.C. relate to a legal set-off in the sense that there must be an ascertained amount legally recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiff but an equitable set-off can also be allowed if the circumstances of the case justify the same. It may also be mentioned that both the parties to the case have put forward their claims which are based on money demands and hence their character in the suit was not changed. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner prevails that the set-off claimed by the defendant was not strictly covered by the provisions of Order VIII, rule 6, C.P.C., the same could be treated as a counter-claim in spite of the fact that there is no provision in the code for making a counter-claim. The Court is not debarred from granting equitable relief if otherwise justified in the circumstances of a case. The defendant had a cause of action against the plaintiff and a separate suit, if brought, would not have been beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The written statement filed by the defendant has the same effect as a plaint in a cross-suit and the Court is to determine the respective rights and liabilities of the parties in the light of the evidence adduced in the case. It is not disputed that full court-fee had been paid by the defendant on the amount claimed as set-off.
3. Even otherwise the case does not involve any error of jurisdiction warranting inteference in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision is accordingly dismissed with costs.