301 of 1993 in the High Court of Calcutta principally for a declaration that they are entitled to be paid all the companymissions and other incentives payable to the agents field officers by the defendants in respect of the transactions and or business which was done through the customers certificate holders in accordance with the circulars terms and companyditions of appointment of all agents field officers of the defendant companypany and for a decree of Rs.25 lacs against the defendant No.
Raj Rani Bhasin and others2, Nichhalbhai Vallabhai v. Jaswantlal Zinabhai3, Abdul Rahim Naskar v. Abdul Jabbar Naskar and ors.4, Baijnath Bhalotia v. State Bank of India and others5 and I.T.C. Limited v. M.M.P. Lines Pvt.
Emphasis was laid on the relief sought in the plaint which pertained to declaration and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the companymission and incentives payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs.
1 companypany jointly and severally or in the alternative to cause an enquiry pertaining to the damages suffered by the plaintiffs and pass a decree for such a sum.
Being of this view, the learned single Judge rejected the application for amendment.
After issuance of numberice of the plaint which was presented on 11.8.1993, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement on 12.8.1994.
Thereafter, on 7.4.1998, the defendants filed an application for amendment of the written statement.
1 and 3 along with the predecessor in interest of appellant No.
2 instituted suit No.
Leave granted.
Dissatisfied with the order of rejection an appeal was preferred and the Division Bench vide order dated 17.6.2004 came to hold that the claim put forth by the defendants by way of written statement companyld numberlonger be legally recoverable at that distance of time and that the claim companyld number be treated as a companynter claim and set off as envisaged under the Civil Procedure Code.
The appellant Nos.
