Defendant's Plea as Defense, Not Set-off, Waives Court Fee on Written Statement

The court determined that the defendant's plea in the written statement, regarding defects in construction and loss incurred, constituted a defense rather than a set-off. As a result, the defendant was not required to pay Court-fee on the written statement. The case was ordered to proceed for further trial based on this distinction between a defense and a set-off in the context of a construction dispute.

---

---

Issues:
Recovery of unpaid bills for construction of a brick kiln, dispute over defects in construction, determination of whether defendant's plea in the written statement constitutes a set-off requiring payment of Court-fee.

Analysis:
The suit involves the recovery of unpaid bills amounting to Rs. 86,000 for constructing a brick kiln by the plaintiff, an Engineering Contractor, from the defendant partnership firm. The defendant's defense is based on alleging defects in the construction not meeting the agreement's specifications, resulting in a loss exceeding Rs. 1,60,000 to the defendant's factory. The dispute centers on whether the defendant's plea in the written statement constitutes a set-off necessitating payment of Court-fee.

The plaintiff argued that Court-fee is payable on the written statement, citing various precedents emphasizing the requirement for Court-fee even for equitable set-offs. However, the defendant contended that the plea was a defense to the suit claim and not a set-off, thus exempt from Court-fee payment. The court examined the nature of the plea to determine its classification.

The court emphasized that to ascertain if the plea in the written statement is a set-off or a defense, the entire plea must be considered. Despite a sentence indicating the defendant's loss exceeding the plaintiff's claim, the court concluded that the defendant's detailed defects in construction aimed to show the plaintiff's disentitlement due to defective work, constituting a defense rather than a set-off. The court clarified that a plea would amount to a set-off only if the plaintiff could recover the suit claim alongside the claim in the written statement.

Drawing from a prior case, the court highlighted that the defendant need not pay Court-fee on the written statement if it serves as a defense to the plaint claim rather than a set-off. Consequently, the court ordered to repost the suit for further trial, determining that the defendant's plea did not require payment of Court-fee.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the distinction between a defense and a set-off in the context of a construction dispute, ultimately deciding that the defendant's plea in the written statement constitutes a defense, not a set-off, exempting it from Court-fee payment.

---