Back
ARCHANA PURI
Ashok Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Archana Puri, J.) :
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby, making a prayer for setting aside of the order dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure P-14), being illegal ultravires, void and without jurisdiction and further made a prayer that application dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure P-12) filed by the petitioner, for dismissal of the counter-claim, be allowed in the interest of justice.
2. The essential facts, to be noticed, are as herein given:-
That, initially, respondent No.1 (plaintiff before learned trial Court) had filed a suit for issuance of permanent injunction to restrain defendant No.1 (petitioner in the present revision petition) from alienating, transferring or mortgaging more than his half share and further to restrain the other defendants and their attorneys etc. from alienating, transferring or mortgaging any part of the suit property, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint. Though, not reproduced in the plaint, but what could be gathered from the title of the suit as well as from the grounds of revision, the essential pedigree table is reproduced, as herein given:-
3. In the plaint, it is asserte
A defendant cannot file a counterclaim against a co-defendant under the CPC, as the provisions only allow counterclaims against the plaintiff.
Plaintiffs have an unqualified right to abandon parts of their claims without court permission, overriding objections from co-defendants regarding counter-claims.
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 must relate to the plaintiff's claims; dissimilarity in cause of action renders it non-maintainable.
Counter claims in partition suits must be directed against the plaintiff; co-defendants cannot initiate claims solely against each other without notice, as all parties have interchangeable roles.
A counterclaim in a partition suit must be against the plaintiff; failing to notify co-defendants constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering any ex parte decree unsustainable.
Counterclaims may be allowed after closing evidence if justified by circumstances; procedural rules must serve justice.
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
