Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice R.SAKTHIVEL
M/S.FORESS IMPEX PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
M/S.M R LOGISTICS INDIA PVT LTD – Respondent
C.R.P.(PD)No.2727 of 2021 | C.M.P.No.19951 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravikumar Paul, Senior Counsel for Paul and Paul and J. Hudson Samuel & Partners
For the Respondents: V.S.Rishwanth for S.Raghunathan (R1), H.Siddharath for P.Giridharan (R6)
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) - Order VIII Rules 6A to 6G - Counterclaim - Impleading new parties - Plaintiff as dominus litis - Defendant cannot implead new parties in a suit through a counterclaim - Remedy lies in filing a separate suit or summoning proposed parties as witnesses - Trial court's discretion not interfered with. (Paras 11-13)
(B) Counterclaim - Treatment as plaint and cross‑suit - Counterclaim under Order VIII can only be set up against the plaintiff and does not entitle the defendant to add new parties to the original suit. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a money suit against defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant filed a written statement with a counterclaim seeking a money decree against the plaintiff. During trial, the first defendant filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) to implead seven proposed parties as defendants, claiming they were necessary or proper for adjudication of the counterclaim. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the plaintiff is dominus litis and the proposed parties were not necessary. The first defendant challenged the dismissal by a civil revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's order. It held that the plaintiff, as dominus litis, has the exclusive right to choose the defendants. A defendant cannot use a counterclaim to implead new parties who are not already part of the suit. If the defendant considers the proposed parties necessary, he may file a separate suit and seek joint trial, or summon them as witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. The counterclaim, though treated as a plaint, operates only against the plaintiff.
Issues: Whether a defendant in a suit can implead new parties (who are not originally parties) through a counterclaim?
Ratio Decidendi: The right to choose parties belongs to the plaintiff. The counterclaim is directed only against the plaintiff and does not expand the scope of the suit to include new parties at the defendant's instance. The defendant's remedy is an independent suit or witness summons, not impleadment in the plaintiff's suit.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petition closed. (Para 14)
ORDER
Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated November 14, 2018 passed in the Interlocutory Application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in I.A.No.571 of 2017 in O.S.No.2414 of 2016 on the file of 'the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'), the Petitioner therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2.The Revision Petitioner herein is the 1st Defendant, the 1st Respondent herein is the Plaintiff and the 2nd Respondent herein is the 2nd Defendant in the Original Suit. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
3.The Plaintiff filed a Suit against the Defendants seeking a money decree directing them to pay a sum of Rs.9,16,079/- along with interest at 18% per annum on Rs.7,81,235/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization.
4.The defendants filed their written statement and the 1st defendant has filed a counter-claim along with the written statement seeking a direction to the Plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.11,51,957.98/- along with interest at 18% per annum on Rs.9,52,037.98 from the date of plaint till the date of realization.
5.When the case was posted for trial, the 1st Defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.571 of 2017 to implead Respondents 3 to 7 herein as proposed Defendants 3 to 7 in the Suit as necessary / proper parties to decide the counter claim.
6.The Trial Court after hearing both sides, concluded that the Plaintiff is the dominus litus and he has the right to choose the Defendants. If the Plaintiff did not implead the necessary parties, the case will be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and must fail. Further, the Plaintiff did not seek any relief against the Respondents 3 to 7 / proposed Defendants. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application.
7.Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order, the Revision Petitioner/1st Defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition.
8.Mr.Ravikumar Paul, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the first defendant filed a written statement with counter claim seeking money decree against the plaintiff. He drew attention to Order VIII Rule 6-A to 6-G of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and submitted that counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and the rules applicable to the plaint applies to counter claim. In short, the counter claim shall be treated as a separate Suit against the plaintiff. To adjudicate the counter claim, the proposed parties are necessary / proper parties. The Trial Court did not properly appreciate the facts and dismissed the petition. In support of his arguments, he relied on Sarojini Amma -vs- Dakshshyani Amma reported in 1994 SCC OnLine Ker 281; Jag Mohan Chawla -vs- Dera Radha Swami Satsang reported in (1996) 4 SCC 699; Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth -vs- Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1958; and A.V.Murugan -vs- K.Maheswari reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 39139.
9.Mr.V.S.Rishwanth, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent referred to the pleadings and submitted that the plaintiff is the dominus litis. He seeks money decree against the defendants 1 and 2 alone. The first defendant filed a counter claim against the plaintiff alone. Hence, the proposed parties are not necessary parties to decide the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant can very well summon the proposed parties for examination during trial if he so desires. In a counter claim, the first defendant cannot implead new parties. If the first defendant feels that the respondents 3 to 7 are proper / necessary parties, then he ought to have filed an independent Suit. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application. There is no need to interfere with it. Accordingly he prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his arguments,
