Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011781-011781 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 9561/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms precedents in Rohit Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2006) 12 SCC 734; Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri (2020) 2 SCC 394 |
| Type of Law | Civil procedure (Order VIII Rule 6A CPC; Limitation Act; Specific Relief Act) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that (1) Order VIII Rule 6A allows a counter-claim only ‘against the claim of the plaintiff’—it cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant (Rohit Singh, Damodhar Sawale); and (2) even if within limitation, counter-claims must be filed before framing of issues, lest it defeat the object of avoiding multiplicity and ensure speedy justice (Ashok Kumar Kalra). |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellant filed a suit in 2012 for declaration/injunction over a cooperative-housing bungalow allegedly jointly owned; defendant 1 died in 2013, substituted by Nazir in 2020; defendant 2 sought amendment in 2021 to add a counter-claim (specific performance and partition) against Nazir/co-defendant; trial court dismissed; High Court allowed; Supreme Court set aside. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Tribunals |
| Overrules | None (reaffirms existing Supreme Court precedents) |
| Distinguishes | High Court order permitting post-issue and co-defendant counter-claim |
| Follows | Rohit Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar; Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, a counter-claim must be “against the claim of the plaintiff” and cannot be directed solely at a co-defendant.
- Confirms that counter-claims filed after issues are framed (“outer limit”) are impermissible, even if within statutory limitation, to prevent delay and multiplicity.
- Reinforces trial court discretion factors (Ashok Kumar Kalra): delay period, reason, prejudice, similarity of causes, cost of fresh litigation, abuse of process.
- Highlights that seeking specific performance via counter-claim against a substituted representative (Nazir) cannot bypass these procedural bars.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Scope of Order VIII Rule 6A CPC
- Allows defendant to set up a counter-claim “against the claim of the plaintiff” for any cause of action accruing before or after suit-filing, but within limitation.
- Counter-claim treated as a cross-suit; governed by plaint rules.
-
Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant
- Rohit Singh (2006): Counter-claim must be directed at plaintiff; sole relief against co-defendant is not maintainable.
- Damodhar Sawale (2023) reaffirmed Rohit Singh.
-
Timing of Counter-Claim
- No explicit legislative time-bar beyond accrual; Rule 6A’s “cause of action” accrual is key.
- Ashok Kumar Kalra (2020): Courts cannot admit counter-claims after issues are framed; discretion must serve speedy and effective justice.
-
Application to Facts
- Defendant 2’s specific-performance claim lay solely against co-defendant (Nazir)—barred.
- Counter-claim filed nine years post-agreement and two years after issue framing—barred.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Plaintiff)
- Counter-claim cannot be maintained against a co-defendant (Order VIII Rule 6A; Rohit Singh).
- Counter-claim barred once issues framed (Ashok Kumar Kalra).
Respondent (Defendant 2)
- Rule 6A permits counter-claim against “claim of the plaintiff” including substituted Nazir.
- Cause of action arose only after Nazir’s appointment (Feb 2020); hence no delay.
Factual Background
- Appellant sued for declaration and injunction over family bungalow, citing an agreement to sell by defendant 1 in 2011.
- Defendant 1 died in 2013; Nazir appointed as substituted defendant in Feb 2020.
- In July 2021, defendant 2 applied to amend the written statement to add a counter-claim for specific performance and partition.
- Trial court dismissed; High Court allowed; Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order.
Statutory Analysis
-
Order VIII Rule 6A CPC
- Counter-claim must be against plaintiff’s claim; treated as plaint; same court-fee and limitation rules apply.
-
Limitation Act, 1963 (Art. 54)
- Specific performance actions to be filed within three years from breach or denial.
-
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Sec. 16(c))
- Defendant must prove readiness and willingness to perform.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Rohit Singh; Ashok Kumar Kalra.