A defendant can assert a counter-claim based on independent causes of action, even if not linked to the plaintiff's cause, to avoid multiple litigations.

ORDER :

DEVNARAYAN MISHRA, J.

Heard on admission.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs herein respondents no.1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and possession of the joint family property left behind by late Shri Naval Kishore Jaiswal in which 11 properties were claimed but they had not included seven properties which were also properties of deceased Naval Kishore Jaiswal.

3. Second wedded wife of deceased Naval Kishore Jaiswal and their issues are the plaintiffs. Appellants-defendants are sons and daughters who were born from the wedlock of first wife Smt. Rajkumari and Naval Kishore Jaiswal when the suit was filed. The appellants-defendants had filed the written statement and also filed counter-claim regarding seven properties which were left by the plaintiffs in their suit claiming it to be joint family properties as these properties were also earned by deceased Naval Kishore Jaiswal.

4. In the written statement of counter-claim, the plaintiffs-respondents had submitted that the seven properties included in the counter-claim were self-acquired properties of plaintiff no.1 Nirmala Jaiswal as the said properties were purchased by herself from self-acquired fund. Hence, these properties cannot be included in the counter-claim and the counter-claim is not maintainable.

5. The plaintiffs-respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Order 8 Rule 6(C) of CPC.

6. Trial Court, after hearing the parties by the impugned order (Annexure-A/1), had dismissed their counter-claim relying on the judgment of Satyender and others v. Saroj and others , (2022) 13 S.C.R. 342 and earlier judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Jag Mohan Chawla and another vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang and others , (1996) 4 SCC 699 on the ground that the plaintiffs in their plaint had not included seven properties which were raised by appellants-defendants in their counter-claim. The valuation of the counter-claim was Rs.15,58,000/- (where the civil suit was valued as Rs.25,27,50,800/-).

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the case of Satyender (supra), it has been held that counter-claim can be made by the defendant even on a separate or independent cause of action. The Legislature permits the institution of a counter-claim in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The counter-claim must be against the plaintiff relying in paragraph 16 of the judgment. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in that case by tactfully and ingeniously, the survey numbers were in the counter-claim. On that basis, the Apex Court dismissed the claim relying on the judgment of Jag Mohan Chawla (supra).

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted in relying the judgment that the word "any right or claim in respect of cause of action accruing with the defendant" would show that the cause of action from which the counter-claim arises need not necessarily arise from or have any nexus with the cause of action of the plaintiff that occasioned to lay the suit. He further relying on the findings has submitted that it has been held that in other words, a defendant can claim any right by way of a counter-claim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though it is independent of the cause of action averred by plaintiff and have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a separate suit.

9. In this case, it is admitted position that by the counter-claim, the jurisdiction of the concerned Trial Court is not ousted. From the language of the Order 8, Rule 6-C of CPC and as discussed the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the counter-