Back
2026 Supreme(MP) 160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ASHISH SHROTI, J.
Shyamswaroop Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
Keshav Premi and Others - Respondents
Miscellaneous Petition No. 6573 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Shri Ankur Mody.
For the Respondents: Shri yogesh Singhal, Shri Shankar Dayal Mishra.
A counter-claim is an independent suit that must satisfy all jurisdictional requirements individually. Territorial jurisdiction cannot be established under Section 17 of the Code unless there is a unity of cause of action between the properties in the main suit and those in the counter-claim.
Headnote:
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 8 fu- 6, & çfrnkos dh O;kfIr & xquk d¢ U;k;ky; esa okn çLrqr fd;k x;k D;¨afd okn laifÙk xquk U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk d¢ Òhrj vkrh gS & çfrnkos d¢ vèkhu dh laifÙk xquk ftys d¢ fdlh vU; U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk d¢ Òhrj vkrh gSa & çfrnkos dk fopkj.k oknh }kjk çLrqr okn ls Lora= flfoy okn d¢ :i esa fd;k tkuk visf{kr & çfrnkos d¢ vèkhu laifÙk ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk g¨uk vko”;d & {ks=h; vfèkdkfjrk d¢ vÒko esa çfrnkos dh ukeatwjh U;k;¨fpr & gLr{ksi okafNr ugÈA 2025 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,llh 1958 fufnZ"VA 1911 ,llhlh vkWuykbu cacà 29] ¼1996½ 4 ,llhlh 699] ¼2020½ 11 ,llhlh 629 rFkk çFke vihy Ø1866 lu~ 2023 fu.kÊr fnukad 21-3-2025 çÒsfnrA ¼iSjk 11] 14 ,oa 20
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & èkkjk 17 & micaèk çfrnkos ij ykxw g¨uk & èkkjk 17 vkdf"kZr djus d¢ fy, okni= esa fÒUu&fÒUu U;k;ky;¨a dh vfèkdkfjrk d¢ Òhrj fLFkr laifÙk varfoZ"V g¨uk pkfg, & çfrnkos esa okni=¨a ij ykxw leLr fu;eksa dh iwfrZ gksuk visf{kr] ftlesa fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh {ks=h; vfèkdkfjrk lfEefyr gS & çfrnkok okni= ls Lora= gksrk gS & Lo;a esa okni= ekuk tkrk gS & okni= ls Lora=] èkkjk 17 dh vis{kk dh iwfrZ gksuk visf{kr & okni= rFkk çfrnkos dk ,d&lkFk iBu dj iwo¨Zä micaèk dk vkJ; ysuk vuqer ugÈ & orZeku ekeys esa] çfrnkos d¢ vèkhu laifÙk okni= d¢ vèkhu laifÙk ls fÒUu & {ks=h; vfèkdkfjrk d¢ vÒko esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk çfrnkok ukeatwj fd;k tkuk U;k;¨fprA ¼2020½ 11 ,llhlh 629 foosfprA ¼iSjk 13] 14 ,oa 20
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 8 fu- 6d & çfrnkok & çfroknh }kjk oknh d¢ fo#) çLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS & d¢oy çfroknhx.k d¢ fo#) ugÈA ¼2006½ 12 ,llhlh 734 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17
(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 8 R. 6A -- scope of counter-claim -- suit filed in Court at Guna as suit property falls within jurisdiction of Guna Court -- properties under counterclaim fall within jurisdiction of some other Court in district Guna -- counter-claim required to be tried as civil suit independent of suit filed by plaintiff -- trial Court required to have jurisdiction over properties under counter-claim -- rejection of counterclaim for want of territorial jurisdiction justified -- no interference warranted. 2025 SCC Online SC 1958 referred to. 1911 SCC Online Bom. 29, (1996) 4 SCC 699, (2020) 11 SCC 629 and First Appeal No. 1866 of 2023 decided on 21.3.2025 distinguished. [Paras 11, 14 & 20
(2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 17 -- applicability of provision to counter-claim -- plaint should contain properties situated within jurisdiction of different Courts for attracting S. 17 -- counter-claim required to satisfy all rules applicable to plaints including territorial jurisdiction of trial Court -- counter-claim is independent of plaint -- treated as plaint in itself -- required to satisfy requirement of S. 17 independent of plaint -- invoking aforesaid provision by reading plaint and counter-claim together not permissible -- in present case, property under counter-claim different from property under plaint -- trial Court justified in rejecting counter-claim for want of territorial jurisdiction. (2020) 11 SCC 629 discussed. [Paras 13, 14 & 20
(3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 8 R. 6A -- counter-claim -- can be filed by defendant against plaintiff -- not solely against defendants. (2006) 12 SCC 734 followed. [Para 17
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background of the counter-claim rejection history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. competing arguments concerning territorial jurisdiction for counter-claims. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. counter-claims are independent suits subject to jurisdictional rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. section 17 cpc requires common cause of action in distinct jurisdictions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. counter-claims must clearly state causes of action against plaintiffs. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. validation of lower court jurisdictional and procedural dismissal. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
Petitioner has filed this misc. petition challenging the order dated 15/5/2024 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guna in Civil Suit No.126-A/2018, whereby, learned trial Court refused to take on record the counter claim filed by him. He has also challenged the order dated 16/9/2025 passed by Sixth District Judge, Guna in MCA No.42/2024, whereby, petitioner's appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC has been dismissed.
2. To understand the controversy involved in this case, the facts, in short, are that one Brijlal had three sons, Surajbhan, Mangilal and Babulal. Plaintiffs, Gopal Krishan Premi and Ballabhdas, as also the initial defendants no.1 to 6 are the legal heirs of Shri Surajbhan. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the initial defendants seeking declaration of their title in respect of a house named as Premi House (Pahla Padav), Jaistambh Chauraha, A.B. Road, Guna.
3. The defendant no.7 to 15 are the legal heirs of Babulal, who were not initially impleaded as party in the civil suit. They have been impleaded subsequently under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Petitioner- Shyam Swaroop Agrawal is one of the sons of Babulal and is defendant no.8 in the civil suit.
4. The petitioner/defendant no.8 alongwith defendant no.9 filed their written statement alongwith the counter claim on 18/4/2024. Pertinently, the counter claim was in respect of certain properties which are situated at village Ruthiyai, District Guna. In the counter claim, they have prayed for a decree of partition and declaration of title. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the counter claim on the ground that defendant no.8 & 9 have failed to plead specifically the cause of action for filing the counter claim. It is further alleged that counter claim in relation to the property which is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is not maintainable. The defendant no.8 & 9 filed reply to the application and prayed for rejection of the same. They averred that the counter claim is filed in accordance with law.
5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 15/5/2024 (Annexure P/2) allowed the application and rejected the counter claim filed by defendant no.8 & 9. The defendant no.8/petitioner alone challenged the order of learned Trial Court by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC, which also suffered dismissal vide another order dated 16/09/2025. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present misc. petition challenging these two orders passed by learned Trial Court and Appellate Court.
6. Challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court erred in rejecting the counter claim on the ground that the properties are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of the Court. It is his submission that in a suit for partition, joint properties of the parties are required to be included even though some of such properties are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of the Court. In support of this submission he relied upon the provisions of Section 17 of the CPC. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs are obliged to include all the joint properties in the suit itself, however, intentionally they did not include the properties which are sought to be includ
