Shyamswaroop Agrawal vs Keshav Premi

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 8 Rule 6A and Section 17 - Counter-claim - Territorial Jurisdiction - A counter-claim is treated as a plaint and is governed by the rules applicable to plaints, which includes the requirement of territorial jurisdiction (Para 11). Where the properties made the subject matter of a counter-claim are situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, the court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the same (Para 11).

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 17 - Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts - To attract the provisions of Section 17, the suit must contain properties situated within the jurisdiction of different courts. Since a counter-claim is independent of the main plaint, it must satisfy the requirements of Section 17 independently (Para 13). It is not permissible to invoke Section 17 by reading the plaint and counter-claim together (Para 13). Additionally, the cause of action for filing the suit regarding properties situated in different jurisdictions must be one and the same (Para 15).

(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 8 Rule 6A - Scope of Counter-claim - A counter-claim is a claim by a defendant against the plaintiff and cannot be filed solely against co-defendants (Para 17).

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding a specific house. Defendants filed a written statement along with a counter-claim seeking a decree of partition and declaration of title for properties situated in a village that fell outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial court rejected the counter-claim, and the appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal against that order.

Findings of Court:
The trial court and appellate court were justified in rejecting the counter-claim because the properties were located outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The counter-claim did not satisfy the requirements of Section 17 of the CPC, lacked a specific cause of action, and appeared to seek relief primarily against co-defendants rather than the plaintiffs.

Issues: Whether a counter-claim involving properties situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court can be maintained by invoking Section 17 of the CPC based on the combined subject matter of the original plaint and the counter-claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Order 8 Rule 6A(4) of the CPC, a counter-claim is treated as an independent plaint and must therefore satisfy all rules applicable to plaints, including territorial jurisdiction. Section 17 of the CPC cannot be invoked by aggregating the properties mentioned in the main suit and the counter-claim; the counter-claim must satisfy Section 17 on its own merits. Furthermore, a counter-claim must be directed against the plaintiff and based on a specifically pleaded cause of action.

Result: Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to rejection of counter claim for partition of properties outside court's territorial jurisdiction in pending suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Counter claim permissible for joint properties outside jurisdiction vs. independent suit requiring territorial jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7 )

3. Petition dismissed; trial and appellate orders rejecting counter claim for want of jurisdiction affirmed. (Para 20 )

4. What is the legal nature of a counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC?

A counter claim is treated as an independent suit or cross-suit, governed by rules applicable to plaints, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )

5. Can Section 17 CPC be invoked to bring properties outside the court's territorial jurisdiction into a counter claim?

No. A counter claim must independently satisfy requirements of territorial jurisdiction; it cannot be read with the plaint to invoke Section 17. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )

6. What are the essential requirements for a valid counter claim regarding cause of action and parties?

A counter claim must plead a specific cause of action against the plaintiff, not solely against co-defendants, and must be clear and specific. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )

ORDER :

Ashish Shroti, J.

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 included by way of counter claim by the defendants. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Jag Mohan Chawla & Anr. Vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang & Ors. reported in (1996)4 SCC 699, Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth Vs. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1958 (AIR 2025 SC 4284), Smt. Uma Devi & Ors. Vs. Sri Anand Kumar & Ors., {SLP (Civil) No.2137/2025}, Shivnarayan (D)by LRs. Vs. Maniklal (D) by LRs. & Ors, reported in (2020)11 SCC 6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 491

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

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the legal nature of a counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC?

5. Can Section 17 CPC be invoked to bring properties outside the court's territorial jurisdiction into a counter claim?

6. What are the essential requirements for a valid counter claim regarding cause of action and parties?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORAshish Shroti, J.Shyamswaroop Agrawal – PetitionerVersusKeshav Premi And Others – RespondentsMiscellaneous Petition No. 6573 of 2025Decided On : 17-03-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the legal nature of a counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC?

5. Can Section 17 CPC be invoked to bring properties outside the court's territorial jurisdiction into a counter claim?

6. What are the essential requirements for a valid counter claim regarding cause of action and parties?

Cases Referred (5)

Judicial Analysis

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