IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 567 of 2025 ASHOK KUMAR Versus ANJANABAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the order dated st

24.04.2025 passed by the I Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bagli, District - Dewas in Regular Civil Suit No.26A/2024, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order VIII Rule 6C of the Code of Civil Procedure for exclusion of counter claim of respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 has been rejected.

02. Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner / plaintiff filed a civil sui8t on 26.04.2024 which has been registered as RCS No.26A/2024 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to land bearing Survey Nos.218 area 0.33 hectare, 219 area 0.70 hectare situated at Village -

Ghudiya, Tehsil - Bagli, District - Dewas.

03. Defendants No.1 to 5.2 entered their appearance before the trial Court and defendants No.5.3 & 5.4 remained ex parte.

04. On 13.08.2024, defendant No.1 filed a counter claim for setting aside the order dated 07.06.2007 passed by the Tehsildar for cancellation of the mutual family partition deed dated 24.12.2007 and for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners of the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.206 area 0.77 hectare, 207 area 0.95 hectare, 208 area 0.70 hectare, 209 area 0.56 hectare, 212 area 2.84 hectare, 214 area 0.52 hectare, 216 area 0.55 hectare, 217 area 0.58 hectare, 218 area 0.33 hectare and 219 area 0.70 hectare (total Survey No.10 Total area 8.50 hectare).

05. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an application under Order VIII Rule 6C of the CPC for exclusion of the counter claim filed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 filed a reply to the aforesaid application.

06. Vide order dated 24.04.2025, the trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order VIII Rule 6C of the CPC, hence, the present civil revision before this Court.

07. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Satyender & Others v/s Saroj & Others reported in (2022) 17 SCC 154, the Apex Court has held that the counter claim can be set up only against the claim of the plaintiff. In the present case, the plaintiff has instituted suit with respect to two survey numbers, however, defendant No.1 filed the counter claim in respect of 10 survey number. The other eight survey number are not even the part of the suit properties which is clear from the plaint's averments. Therefore, counter claim of defendant No.1, not being set up the claim is liable to be excluded.

08. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A(4) of the CPC, the counter claim is treated as a plaint / cross suit and is governed by the rules applicable to the plaint. It has not been mentioned that against whom the claim is being instituted. It is further submitted that the counter claim has been submitted with an intention to cause delay in trial of the suit. Hence, the impugned order be set aside. 09. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the order passed by the trial Court.

10. It is settled principle of law that counter claim once filed becomes plaint and continues on the records of suit until conclusion of trial save and except the occasion where the plaintiff convinces the Court that counter claim ought to constitute the cause of action of different suit and that stage has been defined under Order 8 Rule 6C and since that stage is over, this Court is of the opinion that trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order.

11. For ready reference, Order 8 Rule 6A of the CPC is reproduced below:-

''6A. Counter-claim by defendant.—(1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a