Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-013563-013563 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 16540/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Counterclaim under CPC) |
| Questions of Law | Maintainability of a counterclaim against a co-defendant under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC must be directed against the plaintiff and be incidental or connected to the cause of action in the suit. A co-defendant cannot be sued by way of counterclaim, especially after issues are framed or evidence is closed. Without a formal prayer, no counterclaim lies. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and other forums dealing with counterclaims under CPC |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that a counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC cannot be directed against a co-defendant.
- Reaffirms that counterclaims must contain a formal prayer and be incidental or connected to the plaintiff’s cause of action.
- Emphasises that raising a counterclaim after framing issues or closing evidence bars maintainability.
- Confirms that impleadment of necessary parties cures non-joinder but does not permit co-defendant counterclaims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Noted that the suit was for specific performance against defendant No. 1; defendants 2 & 3 were impleaded by their own application.
- Recalled Rohit Singh: counterclaim must be (a) against plaintiff, (b) incidental to suit, (c) filed before framing issues/evidence closure, and require a formal prayer.
- Recalled Rajul Mano Shah: independent claims (e.g., specific performance) cannot form incidental counterclaims without first establishing title.
- Applied principles: defendants 2 & 3 had no concrete claim—they conceded part sale to plaintiff and failed formal requirements under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC.
- Held the counterclaim against a co-defendant unsustainable and set it aside; left other issues open for trial court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- A counterclaim cannot be maintained against a co-defendant.
- Relied on Rohit Singh and Rajul Mano Shah for the proposition.
Defendants 2 & 3
- Sought liberty to pursue their rights in appropriate proceedings.
- Claimed an independent agreement to purchase 0.50 acres and contended that the plaintiff’s receipt mis-stated area.
Factual Background
The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement dated 02.12.2002 to buy 0.93 acres from defendant No. 1 for which he paid by drafts and took possession. Defendant No. 1’s written statement pleaded non-joinder and impleaded defendants 2 & 3, who claimed a separate agreement for 0.50 acres (payment by bank deposit) and alleged fraud in the area description. The trial court admitted their counterclaim; the High Court refused to quash it under Article 227 CPC to avoid multiplicity.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 8 Rule 6A, CPC:
- Counterclaim must be expressly pleaded, pray for relief, and be incidental or connected with the suit’s cause of action.
- Must be directed against the plaintiff, not against co-defendants.
- Permissible before framing of issues and closure of evidence.
- Article 227, CPC: High Court’s power used to refuse setting aside impleadment to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed