The court emphasized the discretion of the trial court in deciding the admissibility of a counterclaim and the importance of avoiding multiple litigations.

ORDER :

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagada, District – Ujjain, whereby the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case in short are as under

2.1. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for a decree of title, possession, declaration of proceedings initiated under Section 182 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short MPLRC) and permanent injunction in respect of suit property i.e. land bearing Survey No.438 area 3.585 hectare situated at Village – Pandalyakala, Tehsil – Nagada. According to the plaintiff, on the suit land Shri Krishna Ginning Factory was established along with some houses and godown and the remaining land was left vacant. The plaintiff is an absolute owner and in possession of the suit land, on which the defendants have no right or title.

2.2. The defendants/State initiated proceedings under Section 182 of the MPLRC for cancellation of the lease of the suit land given to the predecessors of the plaintiff. The matter travelled up to the Board of Revenue and finally decided on 04.04.2016 which gave cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit on 09.10.2017.

2.3. The defendants/State filed a written statement on 26.10.2018. Thereafter, the issues were framed on 03.01.2019 and the plaintiff filed an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC.

2.4. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the defendants were given time to file a reply and vide order dated 04.10.2019, application was allowed with the cost of Rs.800/-. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.10.2019, an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was also allowed and a certified copy of the sale deed dated 30.01.2019 was taken on record as secondary evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC and time was given to the defendants to file a reply. Vide order dated 21.01.2020, the application was dismissed. By the same order, the applications filed under Order XVIII Rule 8 and Order XXVI Rule 9 by the defendants/State were also rejected. Now the plaintiff filed an affidavit of Om Prakash Ojha under Order XVIII Rule of the CPC on 04.02.2020.

2.5. Defendants/State filed a counterclaim on 07.08.2021 seeking a declaratory decree to the effect that the State Government is the owner of the suit land and the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue be declared void. The defendants also sought a decree of possession by way of counterclaim.

2.6. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC stating that the counterclaim cannot be taken on record which is time barred because the cause of action arose on 17.01.2018. The defendants could have filed the counterclaim along with the written statement, hence, the order to that effect be passed that this counterclaim shall not be entertained.

2.7. Vide impugned order dated 20.09.2021, learned District Judge dismissed the application under Section 151 of the CPC, meaning thereby, counterclaim has been taken on record. Hence, the present petition is before this Court.

3. Shri Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants had occasion to file a counterclaim along with the written statement that was filed on 09.10.2018, thereafter, the issues have been framed and the plaintiff has given evidence by way of an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC, therefore, now the counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6-A cannot be taken on record. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra v/s Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri & Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394, in which it has been held that in any case counterclaim cannot be taken on record after framing the i