IMPORTANT POINT
A counter claim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it, it may also claim relief against co-defendants in the suit. But a counter-claim directed solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 6A; Order 1 Rule 10(2) - Forest Act, 1927 - Section 29 - Counter claim filed against a co-defendant after the trial is concluded - Maintainability - A counter directed solely against co-defendants cannot be maintained - A counter claim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it, it may also claim relief against co-defendants in the suit - Respondent plaintiff filed a suit against Divisional Forest Officer for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for confirmation of his possession over it - Suit went to trial, evidence closed and judgment was reserved - At that stage, appellants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2), Civil Procedure Code claiming that they are in possession of properties including the suit property as owners - There was no allegation that the plaintiff was attempting to interfere with their right or possession - Application allowed by trial court and impleaded parties were ranked as defendants 3 to 17 in the suit - A written statement was filed on behalf of defendants 3 to 12 disputing claim of plaintiff - Defendants 18 to 20 were impleaded only to watch the proceedings and participate in the trial - Application filed by defendants 12 to 17 seeking amendment of written statement for reiterating their claim of acquisition of title based on long and uninterrupted possession was allowed - Relevant procedural and other aspects were ignored by the trial court - Dismissal of suit - Whether there was a counter claim in the suit in terms of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code in this case - (No) - Counter claim so called, filed by defendants 3 to 17 has to be held to be not maintainable.
       Held : The manner in which the trial court went about trying the suit is baffling. Clearly, the relevant procedural and other aspects were ignored by the trial court or were not brought to its notice. Impleading third parties against whom the plaintiff was making no claim and that too after the issues are framed, evidence is closed, arguments are concluded and judgment is reserved was not proper. Thereafter, after again closing the evidence permitting them to make a vague amendment to their written statement and permitting them to pay court fee on a relief which was not even claimed as a specific relief in the written statement and entertaining the vague claim not even supported by the necessary pleadings can only be described as strange.(Para 6)
       Ultimately, the trial court held that the suit by the Plaintiff was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It further held that the plaintiff has not established his claim based on a Hukamnama allegedly granted by one F.F. Christian and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession or right to possession. Thus the suit was found liable to be dismissed. Thereafter, the trial court proceeded, as if defendants 3 to 17 have made a counter-claim in the suit as against defendants 1 and 2, and defendants 18 to 20 and that it has to adjudicate on such a counter-claim.(Para 7)
       Then, it proceeded to grant a decree to defendants 3 to 17 on the ground of non-traverse. This was on the basis that on the trial court allowing the amendment of the written statement by defendants 12 to 17 and on their paying court fee, there has come into existence a counter-claim in terms of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code and since the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 or defendants 18 to 20 had not filed any answer to the counter-claim, that must be treated as a default under Order VIII Rule 6E of the Code and defendants 3 to 17 should be granted a decree on the basis that the counter-claim had not been denied. It totally forgot its own order (the correctness of which itself is doubtful) that though added, defendants 18 to 20 were not entitled to file written statements and were merely to be observers. Nor did it bear in mind that the suit had never been posted for the pleadings of the plaintiff or of defendants 1 and 2 in answer to the alleged counter-claim. Thus, on the basis of the alleged default in filing an answer to the counter-claim, the trial court decreed the counter-claim of defendants 3 to 17. A decree was hence passed dismissing the suit and decreeing the counter-claim declaring that defendants 3 to 17 are and have got absolute right, title and interest in the suit property and they are entitled to recovery of possession of the same. From whom, it was not clarified. It was not noticed that there was no prayer for recovery of possession or for any relief consequential to the declaration sought for though not by way of a formal prayer. (Para 7)
       It is clear that after the evidence was closed, there was no occasion for impleading the interveners. Even assuming that they were properly impleaded, after they had filed their written statement, the suit had gone for further trial and further evidence including that of the interveners had been taken, the evidence again closed and even arguments on the side of the interveners had been concluded. The suit itself was dismissed for default only because on behalf of the plaintiff there was a failure to address arguments. But the suit was subsequently restored. At that stage no counter-claim could be entertained at the instance of the interveners. A counter-claim, no doubt, could be filed even after the written statement is filed, but that does not mean that a counter-claim can be raised after issues are framed and the evidence is closed. Therefore, the entertaining of the so called counter-claim of defendants 3 to 17 by the trial court, after the framing of issues for trial, was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. On that short ground the counter-claim so called, filed by defendants 3 to 17 has to be held to be not maintainable.(Para 15)
       As can be seen, what defendants 3 to 17 did, was to merely amend their written statement by adding a sentence to paragraph 16 of the written statement they originally filed. In paragraph 16 it was only pleaded that those defendants were claiming to be in peaceful possession of the suit lands ever since the time of their predecessors. They wanted to add that they had claimed acquisition of title based on long and uninterrupted possession and they crave leave to get their title declared in the suit for which a declaratory court fee is paid. It may be noted that not even a prayer was sought to be added seeking a declaration of their title as is the normal practice. It is, therefore, clear that on going through the original written statement and the amendment introduced, that there was no counter-claim in terms of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code in the case on hand, which justifies a trial of that counter-claim even assuming that such a counter-claim was maintainable even if no relief was claimed against the plaintiff in the suit but it was directed only against the co-defendants in the suit. The counter-claim so called is liable to be rejected on that ground as well.(Para 16)
       Thirdly, it is seen that the trial court never formally treated the written statement as a counter-claim and give an opportunity to defendants 1 and 2 or defendants 18 to 20 to file their pleas in answer. It was not open to the trial court to proceed on the basis that no answer has been filed to the counter-claim and a decree thereon can be granted in terms of Order VIII Rule 6E of the Code. The trial court clearly found that there was no evidence on the side of defendants 3 to 17 in support their claim of possession but still granted a decree to defendants 3 to 17 only on the ground of the alleged default of defendants 1 and 2 and defendants 18 to 20 in filing an answer to the counter-claim made by defendants 3 to 17. Strangely, the court failed to keep in mind its earlier order that defendants 18 to 20, could not file a written statement and they could only watch the proceedings and participate in the trial. The whole procedure adopted was unsustainable and the decree granted on the so called failure of defendants 1 and 2 on the one hand and defendants 18 to 20 on the other, to file an answer to the counter-claim, is clearly unsustainable in law.(Para 17)
       Normally, a counter-claim, though based on a different cause of action than the one put in suit by the plaintiff could be made. But, it appears to us that a counter-claim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it, it may also claim relief against co-defendants in the suit. But a counter-claim directed solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained. By filing a counter-claim the litigation cannot be converted into some sort of an inter-pleader suit. Here, defendants 3 to 17 had no claim as against the plaintiff except that they were denying the right put forward by the plaintiff and the validity of the document relied on by the plaintiff and were asserting a right in themselves. They had no case even that the plaintiff was trying to interfere with their claimed possession. Their whole case was directed against defendants 1 and 2 in the suit and they were trying to put forward a claim as against the State and were challenging the claim of the State that the land involved was a notified forest in the possession of the State. Such a counter-claim, in our view, should not have been entertained by the trial court.(Para 18)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

A counter-claim must be directed against the plaintiff in the suit; a counter-claim solely against co-defendants is not maintainable. The purpose of a counter-claim is to resolve issues between the plaintiff and defendant, not to introduce independent claims against co-defendants (!) (!) .
The procedural rules specify that counter-claims can be filed as part of the written statement, by way of amendment, or as a subsequent pleading, but they must adhere to specific legal requirements. Filing a counter-claim after the evidence is closed or issues are settled, especially without proper pleadings, is not permissible (!) (!) .
The attempt by defendants to amend their written statement after the closure of evidence to include a claim of title based on long and uninterrupted possession was not recognized as a valid counter-claim under the applicable rules. Such amendments do not automatically convert into a counter-claim unless they meet the legal criteria (!) .
The trial court and appellate courts erred in entertaining a counter-claim against co-defendants after the issues had been framed and evidence concluded. The procedural irregularities, including allowing amendments and payments of court fees without proper pleadings, rendered the counter-claim invalid (!) (!) (!) .
The courts failed to give proper opportunity to all parties to respond to the counter-claim, especially those who were not originally parties to the counter-claim, and did not ensure compliance with the procedural requirements. This resulted in an unsustainable decree based on procedural irregularities (!) (!) .
The final dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit was lawful, as the suit was found to be not maintainable due to procedural deficiencies, including lack of proper notice and failure to establish possession or rights. The counter-claim, being invalid, could not alter this outcome (!) (!) .
The courts' actions in remanding the case for further trial based on an invalid counter-claim were improper. Since the suit had already been dismissed and the dismissal was final, there was no legal basis for a fresh trial or for treating the amendments as a valid counter-claim (!) (!) .
The procedural irregularities and the improper handling of the counter-claim led to an erroneous judgment. The appropriate course was to uphold the finality of the original dismissal and to reject the counter-claim as not legally sustainable (!) (!) .
The appeals by the defendants against the final judgment were dismissed, and the original decree dismissing the suit was upheld, emphasizing that no valid counter-claim was established under the applicable legal rules (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.

JUDGMENT

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. - Leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 6 herein as the Plaintiff filed a suit T.S. No. 9 of 1996 for a declaration of his title to the suit property, for confirmation of his possession over it and if it were to be found that the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the plaint schedule property during the pendency of the suit, for the grant of a decree for recovery of possession through the process of court, for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property and for other incidental reliefs. The suit was filed against two defendants; the Divisional Forest Officer and the State of Bihar, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the claim of title and possession by the plaintiff. They pleaded that the property was vested forest having been notified as such under Section 29 of the Forest Act, 1927, which remained vested in the State; that the plaintiff had no cause of action and that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit went to trial. Evidence was closed. Arguments concluded. Judgement was reserved.

2. At that stage, certain third parties who are the appellants herein, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that they are in possession of properties including the suit property as owners and that they have right, title, interest and khas possession over the suit land. They submitted that their presence before the court was necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. It is to be noted that there was no allegation that the plaintiff was attempting to interfere with their right or possession. It was only stated that they had come to know that the plaintiff had filed a suit based on some illegal and invalid documents and was proceeding with the suit speedily without impleading them. The said application was allowed by the trial court. The impleaded parties were ranked as defendants 3 to 17 in the suit.

3. A written statement was filed on behalf of defendants 3 to 12 disputing the claim of the plaintiff and pleading that the suit properties were held by them as descendants of one Tikait Maharaj Singh and they were in khas possession of the land. They pleaded that they were in peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property by inheritance that they and their ancestors have acquired raiyati right over a large extent of land which took in the suit land, both under law by adverse possession and under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. They reiterated that they were claiming to be in peaceful possession of the suit lands ever since the time of their ancestors. The land had not been demarcated by the forest authorities in the year 1964-65.

4. In the mean time, certain other persons claiming to be lessees of portions of the land filed applications for getting themselves impleaded in the suit. They were ranked as defendants 18 to 20 by the court which, though permitted their intervention, directed that they can only watch the proceedings and participate in the trial but they would have no right to file any written statement.

5. Again, after some delay and after the suit had gone on, an application was made on behalf of defendants 12 to 17 seeking an amendment of the written statement earlier filed and adding a sentence at the end of paragraph 16 reiterating their claim of acquisition of title based on long and uninterrupted possession. This amendment was allowed by the trial court. We think that it will be useful to quote paragraph 16 of the written statement as amended.

"16. That the statements made in paras 9 to 11 are incorrect and concocted and are denied. These defendants are in peaceful possession of the suit lands ever since the time of their ancestors. These d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 955

IMPORTANT POINTA counter claim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it, it may also claim relief against co-defendants in the suit. But a counter-claim directed solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
A counter claim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it, it may also claim relief against co-defendants in the suit. But a counter-claim directed solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained.