Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
Farok Sarkari S/o Late Preston Ji Rustam – Appellant
Versus
M/s. New Finn Groups – Respondent
Application Nos. 1811, 1812 of 2020
Decided On : 29-01-2021
APPLICATION - TRANSFER OF SUIT - Order XIV Rule 8, Clause 13 of Letters Patent, Section 24 of CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC, which restricts counter claims from exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court where the original suit is filed. The court emphasized that a counter claim must have a separate cause of action and cannot exceed the jurisdictional limits of the court. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to dismiss the application for transfer, as the counter claim exceeded the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The Defendant filed applications to withdraw a suit pending in the III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai and to stay proceedings in that suit, arguing that a counter claim exceeding the court's pecuniary jurisdiction was filed alongside the original suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the counter claim exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, and the Defendant's attempt to file it in the same suit was an abuse of process. The court reiterated that a counter claim must not exceed the jurisdictional limits of the court where the original suit is pending.
Issues: Whether the counter claim filed by the Defendant exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and whether the suit should be transferred to a higher court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a counter claim must have a separate cause of action and cannot exceed the jurisdictional limits of the court where the original suit is pending, as established in Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC and supported by precedents.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Application No. 1811 of 2020 and closed the connected Application No. 1812 of 2020.
ORDER :
Prayer in A.No. 1811 of 2020: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and Section 24 of the CPC praying the court to withdraw the suit pending on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai to the file of this Court and try the same in accordance with law.
Prayer in A.No. 1812 of 2020: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and Section 24 of the CPC praying to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 4820 of 2019 pending on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai till the said O.S.No. 4820 of 2019 is withdrawn from the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai to the file of this Court in accordance with law.
1. Application in A.No. 1811 of 2020 has been filed to withdraw the suit pending on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai to the file of this Court and Application in A.No. 1812 of 2020 has been filed to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 4820 of 2019 pending on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai.
2. Heard Ms. Priyadarshini Natarajan learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.C.P.Siva Mohan learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. Applications, supporting affidavits and other materials produced are perused.
3. The Application mentioned Suit in O.S.No. 4820 of 2019 has been filed by the Respondents for the following Reliefs:
b. For a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, agents representatives or any one acting on behalf of him from in any way disturbing interfering and thratening the plaintiff in their business place and their family members at residence place in guise of any demand for cancelling the Registered Promissory Note dated 28.08.2018 Registered Document No. 47 of 2018 SRO at Surandai and in any manner affecting the right and peaceful life to the Plaintiffs and their family Members except by due process of law.
c. To award cost of suit.
d. And to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
4. The Applicant herein is the Defendant in the above referred suit filed Written Statement incorporating the counter claim which is valued at Rs.2.70 Crores which exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai. After filing Written Statement the Applicant herein has come forward with the present Transfer Application stating that the suit should be transferred to this Court since the counter claim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai, in which the suit is pending.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that since the cause of action for the Plaintiff and the cause of action for the Defendant are one and the same, he has no other alternative remedy except to file the counter claim in the suit filed by the Respondent herein. Even after knowing the same that the City Civil Court, Chennai is not having pecuniary jurisdiction for trying the suit valued at Rs.2.70 Crores, and the Applicant herein filed the said counter claim and arguing for transferring the entire suit from the file of City Civil Court, Chennai, to this Court.
6. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the Applicant relied upon the following three judgments:
2. Pritesh Kumar Singh Vs. Peepee Publishers and Distributors, 2015 SCC Online Del. 11261
3. Jag Mohan Chawla and Another Vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang, (1996) 4 SCC 699
7. On going through close reading of the sai
The court established that the High Court's power to withdraw cases from subordinate courts under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent must be exercised with regard to the interests of justice, and that p....
Point of law: As per sub-Rule(2) to Rule 10 of Order VII of CPC on returning of a counter claim (plaint), the judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the part....
A counter claim can be treated as a plaint and maintained independently, but must not exceed the court's pecuniary jurisdiction.
A counter-claim must meet the pecuniary jurisdiction requirements of the Court to be maintainable; in this case, it was below the threshold, rendering it invalid.
The valuation of the original suit determines the jurisdiction for appeals, irrespective of the counter claim's valuation, as per the provisions of the C.P.C.
The court has the discretion to entertain filing of the counter claim after the written statement, but such filing should not be done at a highly belated stage. The court should consider various fact....
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
