Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.
Bigan Upadhyay son of Late Ramayan Upadhyay and ors.- Petitioners
Versus
Yamuna Devi wife of Dr. Umesh Rai and ors., - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.333 of 2018
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Counter Claim - Civil Procedure - Order VIII Rule 6 C of Code of Civil Procedure - 4 SCC 699, 2022 Live Law (SC) 679, Writ Petition No. 1722/2010 - The court discussed the provisions related to counter claim and observed that it allows a defendant to claim any right by way of counter claim in the same suit, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The counter claim must be within the pecuniary limits of the court's jurisdiction and must be against the plaintiff. The court also emphasized the plaintiff's inherent right to oppose any claim made by the defendant and the discretion of the court to exclude the counter-claim in favor of the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a Title Suit seeking relief for declaration of their title over the property mentioned in the plaint and restoration of their position if dispossessed by the defendants. The defendants filed a written statement cum counter claim opposing the plaintiff's prayer and claiming their title over the same property. The plaintiffs filed a petition to reject the counter claim, which was rejected by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court wrongly rejected the petition filed by the plaintiffs under Order VIII Rule 6 C of the Code without deciding the objection of the plaintiffs. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the application afresh in accordance with the law.
Issues: The rejection of the petition filed by the plaintiffs under Order VIII Rule 6 C of the Code without deciding their objection and without giving valid and cogent reasons for rejection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the provisions related to counter claim, the plaintiff's inherent right to oppose the claim, and the discretion of the court to exclude the counter-claim in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Application is directed against the order dated 01.12.2017 passed in T.S. No. 170/13 by the learned Sub Judge-3, Sasaram, Rohtas whereby and where under he has rejected the petition dated 22.01.2014 filed by the petitioners under Order VIII Rule 6 C of Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The facts, in brief relevant for decision of this case, are that the petitioners who are the plaintiffs filed a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 170/13 seeking relief inter alia for declaration of their title over the Schedule A property mentioned in the plaint and restoration of their position of the suit property if they have been dispossessed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit.
4. On summon, the defendants/respondents appeared on 14.05.2013 in the case and filed their written statement cum counter claim on 24.09.2013 in which they have opposed the prayer of the plaintiff in the plaint and claimed their title over the lands mentioned as Schedule A property in their written statement cum counter claim. Thereafter on 24.03.2014, the petition dated 28.10.2013 for condonation of delay in filing written statement of defendants/respondents has been rejected by the learned Court below due to not pressed and thereafter again they made an application dated 16.04.2014 for accepting the written statement filed by defendants/respondent Nos. 1 to 10 after condonation of delay in filing written statement which was allowed on 20.06.2014.
5. The petitioners filed a petition dated 22.01.2014 under Order VIII Rule 6 C of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the counter claim filed by the defendants/respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and a rejoinder dated 05.07.2017 filed on behalf of the defendants/respondent Nos. 1 to 10. The learned Court below rejected the petition dated 22.01.2014 filed by the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 holding that the counter claim of defendants/respondents was already admitted on 20.06.2014.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Court below wrongly and illegally dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order VIII Rule 6 C of the Code for exclusion of the counter claim of the defendants without deciding the objection of the plaintiffs that defendants may file a separate suit because of the fact that the property mentioned in the counter claim was not in any manner related to suit property, as such was not the subject matter of the present suit. Further, it is stated that the learned Court below wrongly and illegally asked the defendants to pay the Court fee on the amount of counter claim.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petition of defendants/respondent Nos. 1 to 10 dated 16.04.2014 was only related to condonation of delay and for accepting the written statement which was admitted on 20.06.2014 but the matter related to admission of counter claim and objection petition of petitioners under Order VIII Rule 6 C of C.P.C. filed by the petitioners on 22.01.2014 was pending which was not decided by order dated 20.06.2014 or prior to depositing the Court fee by defendant/respondent but the learned Court below wrongly rejected the petition of the petitioners on misappreciation that counter claim of the defendants was admitted by order dated 20.06.2014.
8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order was passed without giving any valid and cogent reasons for rejection of the petition of the petitioners which is not proper and also not in accordance with law which is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the Court after appreciating the facts and the law rightly passed the impugned order and the petition of the petitioner is misconceived and liable to be rejected.
10. The provisions with respect to counter claim have been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex C
AI
The plaintiff has an inherent right to oppose any claim made by the defendant, and the court has the discretion to exclude the counter-claim in favor of the plaintiff.
A counterclaim must be raised before issue framing begins; late submissions risk disrupting judicial efficiency and violate procedural rules.
Counter-claim – Defendant can claim set-off of any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from plaintiff, against plaintiff’s demand, in a suit for recovery of money – Order 8 Rule 6-A o....
The counter claim filed after the cause of action arose, much after the filing of the suit and submission of written statement, was not permissible under the law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
