Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J.
Velu and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Palanivelu and ors. - Respondents
CRP.(PD).No.173 of 2025
Decided On : 18-02-2025
Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points extracted and formatted as requested:
Subject and Legal Context The document pertains to Civil Law and Civil Procedure, specifically addressing the rules under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding counter claims and court jurisdiction. (!) (!)
Core Legal Principle: Independent Maintainability A counter claim can be treated as a plaint and is maintained independently of the main suit. It is governed by the same rules applicable to plaints, allowing for independent adjudication even if the original suit faces procedural hurdles. (!) (!) (!)
Nature of a Counter Claim A counter claim is essentially a cross-suit based on an independent cause of action. It is not merely a defense to the plaintiff's claim but a separate claim against the plaintiff that could have been filed as an independent suit. (!) (!) (!)
Jurisdictional Limits While a counter claim can be independent, it cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court where it is filed. If the value of the counter claim exceeds the court's pecuniary limits, the court must return the claim. (!) (!) (!)
Procedure for Exceeding Jurisdiction When a counter claim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the original court, it must be returned to the petitioner. The petitioner is then required to present this returned counter claim before the appropriate court that possesses the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction. (!) (!)
Treatment in the Proper Court Once the counter claim is presented to the court having the proper jurisdiction, the jurisdictional court shall treat the counter claim as a suit and assign it a number. (!)
Outcome of the Current Matter In the specific instance described, the Civil Revision Petition was allowed. The court directed that since the counter claim exceeded the jurisdiction of the original court, it be returned and presented to the appropriate jurisdictional court. (!)
ORDER :
P.T. Asha, J.
Challenging the docket order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Omalur in and by which the learned Judge had returned the counter claim filed by the petitioners/defendants without numbering the same, the petitioners/defendants are before this Court.
2. Though the revision requires to be disposed of on a preliminary issue, it would be apposite to extract briefly the facts of the case. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court
3.Suit O.S.No.2/2019 has been filed by the respondents in the above Civil Revision Petition on the file of the District Munsif, Omalur seeking for a permanent injunction against the defendants, the revision petitioners herein restraining them from disturbing the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4.The plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit would contend that the 1st plaintiff had purchased the property from the defendants on 23.10.2015 under a registered document after paying the entire sale consideration. The sale deed was executed pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 30.12.2013 which was also a registered one. On the basis of this purchase, the 1st plaintiff had sold an extent of 4901/2 sq.f.t house site together with the house on 07.09.2016 to the plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4. The defendants despite receiving the entire sale consideration has been demanding further sale consideration and have threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit in question.
5. The 1st defendant had filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 to 6, denying the various allegations contained in the plaint. The defendants' contention is that they had borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from one Veeramuthu Raja, for which as a security, an agreement of sale deed dated 10.02.2011 was executed. The defendants had been remitting the periodic interest and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was due towards the principal and interest. The defendants had returned the sum of Rs.80,000/- to the said Veeramuthu. However, for the balance of Rs.20,000/- they had approached the 1st plaintiff and requested him to pay the balance amount. Accordingly, the 1st plaintiff had paid the balance amount and as security for the said loan had obtained an agreement of sale in his favour and also obtained the original title deed of the property.
6. When the 1st and 2nd defendants approached the 1st plaintiff, requesting him to receive the loan amount and cancel the agreement of sale, the 1st plaintiff took them to the Sub-Registrar's Office and made them sign documents. Since they were not well-educated, they were unaware about the actual contents of the documents and trusting the same to be a cancellation deed had signed the same. However, it appears that what was obtained was a sale deed.
7. The defendants have also subsequently filed an additional written statement with a counter claim. The counter claim has been filed for the following reliefs:-
(i) to direct the plaintiffs to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the 2nd defendant;
(ii) to declare the sale agreement dated 30.12.2013 as null and void and consequently to declare the sale deed dated 23.10.2015 executed on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 30.12.2013 as null and void;
(iii) to declare the sale deed dated 07.09.2016 executed by the 1st plaintiff in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 4 as null and void;
(iv) to grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from alienating the suit property to third parties.
8. This counter claim filed by the defendants has been returned as it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Omalur. When the counter claim was properly represented before the Sub Court, Omalur, once again the same has been returned on 21.11.2024 stating as follows:-
“This Petition mentioned case in O.S.No.2/2019 is transferred from DMC, Omalur as per Jurisdiction, the plaint is already returne
A counter claim can be treated as a plaint and maintained independently, but must not exceed the court's pecuniary jurisdiction.
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....
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....
The court affirmed that counter claims can be filed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, even after the written statement, as long as they comply with legal principles.
A counterclaim directed solely against a co-defendant is typically impermissible; however, if it intertwines with a plaintiff's claim, it may hold validity under commercial agreements.
A counter-claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case.
A counter claim cannot exceed the pecuniary limits of the court in which the original suit is pending, and must have a separate cause of action.
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.
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
