JUDGMENT - L. MANOHARAN, J. :---The applicants herein are defendants 1 to 3 in Regular Civil Suit No. 79 of 1989 pending on the file of Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Gondia. The non-applicants 1 to 7 instituted the said suit for declaration and consequential injunction. That suit was with respect to Gat No. 275. The applicants herein filed a written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiffs and in addition raised a counter-claim seeking an injunction restraining the plaintiffs No. 1 to 7 from interfering with their possession in Gat No. 276 and the land adjacent to it. Thereafter the plaintiffs moved an application under Order VIII, Rule 6-C of Civil Procedure Code for exclusion of the counter-claim. The trial Court by the impugned order allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have come up in this civil revision. This matter when came up before the learned Single Judge, His Lordship felt that the decision in (Chandrakant v. Manikrao)1, 1988 Mah.L.R. 1488 relied on by the trial Court is in conflict with the decision of this Court in (Manikchand v. Mulchand)2, 1994 Mh.L.J. 732. Therefore, the learned Judge directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench to resolve the aforesaid conflict, and that is how this matter has now come up before this Bench.

2.The short question now arises for decision is as to the scope of Rule 6-A of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure. The same reads as under :

"6-A(1) - A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not:

Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

(2) ...................

(3) ...................

(4) ............................................."

In the decision in Chandrakant v. Manikrao the Court relied on the decision in (Jaswant Singh v. Smt. Darsan Kaur)3, A.I.R. 1983 Patna 132. The learned Judge in Manikchand case 1994 Mh.L.J. 732, relies on the decisions in (Pathrose Samual and another v. Karumban Parameswaran)4, A.I.R. 1988 Kerala 163, (Suman Kumar v. St. Thomas School and Hostel)5, A.I.R. 1988 Punjab Haryana 38, and (Bandu Sadale v. Shridhar P. Patil)6,1992 Mh.L.J. 784, to conclude that where the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant and the defendant raises a counter-claim seeking restoration of possession, the said counter-claim is maintainable. As noticed, unlike Rule 6(1) of Order VIII, Rule 6-A thereof states, a defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading of set-off, can also set up by way of counter claim against the plaintiff with respect to a cause of action which accrued to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit, the only restriction to set up the same is, the cause of action for the same must have arisen before the defendant delivers his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. Thus, on a plain reading of Rule 6-A

of Order VIII, it is clear that there is nothing in the said Rule to restrict its operation to money suit only. Therefore, an interpretation restricting the scope of Rule 6-A to money suit cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court in two decisions has taken the view that irrespective of the fact whether the cause of action for counter claim had accrued to defendant either before or after the filing of the suit, a counter claim can be entertained. The only restriction is, the cause of action from which the counter claim should arise before the time fixed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document