Can a Co-Defendant Object to Another Co-Defendant?

2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 40

In the ordinary course, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 could not have been permitted to raise any objection to the said prayer for abandonment. ... The legal position is, thus, well settled that, a defendant cannot be permitted to raise a counter-claim against the co- defendant. The provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 6-A only enable the defendant to raise a counter-claim against the plaintiff. ... To begin with, it would be relevant....

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7978

Thus, the legal representative is/are entitled to raise all pleas which the deceased defendant had or could have raised. ... In the said case, the deceased defendant no.6 had not even filed reply and cross-examined the witnesses. It is, thus, a case where legal representative’s right to raise defence available to the deceased defendant was at stake. ... It is further not the case of these legal representatives that they intent to raise a defence which could have been raised by their fa....

The defendant had allowed the plaintiff to raise the walls of the house without objection, and it was not open to him to restrain the continuance of the walls (Voet, 10, 3, 7). ... If a building was put upon it.. it cannot be said to injure the rights of the co-owners. It rather benefits them. Moreover, plaintiff had done nothing new at the time defendant applied for the injunction. ... The material facts in this case are these: that the defendant objected to the plaintiff building....

2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 569

Further, Rule 6C gives entitlement to the plaintiff to raise an objection to the counter claim filed by the defendant before the issues are framed, in relation to the counter claim and the plaintiff can make a claim that counter claim of defendant be excluded from his suit and the defendant, filing the ... Hence it is held that a defendant cannot file a counter claim against a co-defendant under any circumstances. Order VIII Rule 6A to 6G provide for....

2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1464

As the opposite party did not object to this course, it must be deemed to have waived the objection. It is not disputed and indeed cannot be that objec-tion based on the rule of res judicata can be waived. Thus on this ground also the objection I fails.” 26. ... Otherwise his failure to raise the same would amount to waiver of his right to raise the plea of res judicata. The appropriate stage to raise the plea of res judicata means earliest opportunity to raise the p....

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34828

In view of this, defendant no. 2 is held to be disentitled to raise prayer of specific performance by way of counter- claim. ... the application filed by the defendant No.2 cannot be allowed by this court. ... Of course, it is true that through the counter- claim the defendant is permitted to raise other cause of action, besides the ones raised by the plaintiff. ... As per the terms of the tripartite agreement, the petitioner-defendant No.2 could not have cancelled th....

I think that is a good objection. No contract was proved between the defendant and the plaintiff which gave the plaintiff the right to sue this defendant. ... In my opinion the objection that plaintiff had no right to sue this defendant was rightly taken by the answer, and ought to have been disposed of by the Judge. Now, the objection taken by the defendant is this. He says: "You (the plaintiff) have no right to " sue me. ... The defendant ....

Matara, No. 6,583 2) have decided that a co-owner cannot maintain an action against another co-owner without joining all other co-owners of the land. No. objection on this ground was taken at the trial, and no application was made by the defendant to add the other co-owners. ... But in the petition of appeal ,the defendant took an objection to the effect that the plaintiff could not maintain this action against the defendant without joining the other co-owners as parties. ... Sect....

    Co-owner-Objection to another building on common property-Right to an injunction-Cannot be compelled to bring partition action. ... An objection was taken by the defendant that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain this action and that his only remedy was a partition action. This objection was upheld by the learned Commissioner who dismissed the plaintiff's action. ... He cannot be compelled in the circumstances to institute a partition action. APPEAL from a judgmen....

No objection based on section 17 to the constitution of the action was ever taken. The issue suggested by the defendants' counsel-" Can the plaintiffs as partners maintain this action in respect of the properties described in schedules A and B? "-involves no such objection. ... " This issue does not, in my opinion, clearly raise the question of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. It has also not been dealt with in the judgment of the District Court. ... A consideration of these two sections seems to indicate that object....

Current Civil Cases

Sham Das, Bawa and others, reported in AIR 1938 Privy Council 59, tendering evidence by other party withholding his own witness by a party to the suit is deprecated, but discussing the ratio decided therein, this Court held that a party to the suit can examine its adversary as a witness to lead evidence. Thus, there cannot be any raise of eyebrows in permitting a defendant to examine the co-defendant as a witness on his behalf.

2020 0 Supreme(Ori) 196

5. From the above case laws, it emanates that although in the case of Shatrugan Das, Mahant substituted for Mahant Ram Lakhan Das alias Ram Lakhman Das v. Sham Das, Bawa and others, reported in AIR 1938 Privy Council 59, tendering evidence by other party withholding his own witness by a party to the suit is, deprecated, but discussing the ratio decided therein, this Court held that a party to the suit can examine its adversary as a witness to lead evidence. Thus, there cannot be any raise of eyebrows in permitting a defendant to examine the co-defendant as a witness on his behalf.#....

2020 0 Supreme(MP) 52

It was further objected that the provisions under Order 18 rule 17 of the CPC would not be applicable in the present case. 3. The sum and substance of the objection was that one co-defendant cannot be permitted to cross-examine the other defendant.

2019 0 Supreme(MP) 527

Furthermore, it is submitted by the counsel for the No. 1 that the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on a lesser side. The claimant would also remain claimant for all practical purposes at all different stages of the litigation. Thus it cannot be said that the cross-objection filed by the claimant is a cross objection against the co-defendant. However, with regard to the direction given by the Claims Tribunal that the appellant is responsible for making payment of compensation amount without holding that the insured/owner and driver are also jointly and ....

2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 745

It was pointed out that even the defendant did not raise any objection of non-joinder of any other co-sharer. It was thus argued that the suit is neither bad for non-joinder of other co-sharers nor bad for partial partition. It was also contended that property in village Inna Bajwa is owned not only by plaintiff and defendant but also by other co-sharers and therefore, the same could not be included in the present suit relating to suit house in which only plaintiff and defendants are co-sharers. 6. Counsel for the appellant contended that only plaintiff and defendant were c....