Counter-claims must generally be filed before the framing of issues; exceptional circumstances allowing later filing were absent in this case. Judicial discretion should prevent substantial alteration of proceedings and avoid prejudice to the opposite party. (Paras: 12, 14, 20, 24, 27)

Counter-claim filed after framing of issues and recording of evidence was not permissible. Defendant No.3 was aware of the Plaintiff’s title claim from the outset; no exceptional circumstances existed. Permitting the counter-claim would alter the nature and scope of the proceedings, causing prejudice to the Plaintiff.

Writ Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 17 September 2014 set aside. Application (Exhibit 144) seeking permission to file counter-claim rejected. Rule made absolute. No costs.

Major Acts:

• Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Order VIII Rule 6-A — Counter-Claim — Order VIII Rule 6-G — Written Statement in Response to Counter-Claim

Subjects:
Counter-Claim — Belated Filing — Framing of Issues — Amendment of Pleadings — Limitation — Exceptional Circumstances — Title Declaration — Multiplicity of Proceedings — Judicial Discretion — Prejudice to Opposite Party

Nature of the Litigation:
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of an order passed by the Civil Judge, Kolhapur, permitting the Respondent No.3 to file a counter-claim in an ongoing civil suit.

Petitioner’s Relief Sought:
The Petitioner sought to restrain the State of Maharashtra and Tahasildar from disturbing her possession over the suit property and prevent the Co-operative Housing Society (Respondent No.3) from constructing a road or cutting trees on the suit property.

Reason for Filing the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the Civil Judge’s order allowing the belated counter-claim application by Respondent No.3 after issues had been framed and evidence had been recorded, claiming it was legally unsustainable and barred by limitation.

Previous Decisions:
The Civil Judge, Kolhapur, permitted the counter-claim application filed by Respondent No.3 subject to payment of costs to the Plaintiff.

Issues:

• Whether the counter-claim filed after the settlement of issues and recording of evidence was legally permissible.

• Whether the counter-claim was barred by the law of limitation.

• Whether exceptional circumstances justified the acceptance of the belated counter-claim.

Submissions/Arguments:
(a) Petitioner’s Submissions:

• Counter-claim filed at a highly belated stage was impermissible.

• Defendant No.3 had multiple opportunities to file pleadings and availed of them.

• The counter-claim sought declarations on sale deeds executed decades ago, which were barred by limitation.

(b) Respondent’s Submissions:

• Amendment of the plaint necessitated the counter-claim.

• The counter-claim did not introduce a new case but elaborated on the existing written statement.

• Exceptional circumstances justified the counter-claim after the framing of issues.