Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment and order dated August 1, 1994 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.1272 of 1994. The appellants-plaintiffs filed suit No.896/92 before the Sub-Judge, Amritsar for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession of property bearing Khasra No.456, Purana Bazar, G.T. Road, Beas. The respondents-defendants filed a written statement pleading that they had purchased lands in Khasra No.103/1 situated at Budha Theh, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, Punjab, and were in possession of 18 marlas of that land. They sought a counter-claim of permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering with that possession. The appellants filed an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 6E CPC disputing the counter-claim averments and contending that the counter-claim was not maintainable. They also filed an application under Order 8 Rule 6C and Section 151 CPC praying to exclude the counter-claim from the written statement. The Subordinate Judge dismissed that application by order dated November 11, 1993. The High Court dismissed the revision with a direction to the trial Court to decide as an issue whether the property in dispute was the same as the subject matter of the counter-claim and to dispose of the suit after recording findings. Hence the appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that in a suit for injunction, cause of action is based on threat of dispossession, and a counter-claim is referable only to money suits, so the counter-claim should have been excluded. The appellant also challenged the High Court's direction to identify the land. The respondent argued that the object of Rules 6A to 6G CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and all claims between parties, whether based on same or different cause of action, should be tried in the same proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6 and Rules 6A to 6G CPC as inserted by the CPC Amendment Act, 1976. It noted that prior to 1976, Rule 6 limited set-off or counter-claim to money suits, but the amendment conferred a statutory right to set up any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff, whether before or after filing of the suit but before the time for delivering defence expires, and whether such counter-claim is for damages or not. The Court held that the language of Rule 6A(1) is wide enough to include independent causes of action not connected with the plaintiff's cause of action, and the only limitation is that the cause of action should arise before the time fixed for filing the written statement expires. The Court relied on Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala & Ors. and Mahendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. to support the view that a counter-claim is treated as a cross-suit and can be decided in the same suit without relegating the defendant to a fresh suit. The Court held that the counter-claim expressly is treated as a cross-suit with all indicia of pleadings as a plaint including the duty to aver cause of action and pay requisite court fee, and that relegating the defendant to a separate suit would defeat the purpose of the amendment. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it with no costs, thereby upholding the maintainability of the counter-claim for injunction in a suit for injunction even on a different cause of action.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Counter-Claim - Maintainability in Injunction Suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 8 Rules 6A to 6G - A defendant in a suit for injunction may set up a counter-claim for injunction, whether relating to the same or a different property; the 1976 amendment removed earlier confinement of set-off/counter-claim to money suits. The trial court and High Court correctly allowed the counter-claim to proceed. Held that counter-claim is maintainable in injunction suit (Paras not mentioned). B) Civil Procedure - Counter-Claim - Independent Cause of Action - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 8 Rule 6A(1) - The statutory language "any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing with the defendant" is wide enough to include causes of action independent of and unconnected with the plaintiff's cause of action; the only limitation is that the cause of action must accrue before the time fixed for filing the written statement expires. Held that the counter-claim need not relate to the original cause of action and may be set up even after institution of suit (Paras not mentioned). C) Civil Procedure - Counter-Claim - Cross-Suit Effect and Avoidance of Multiplicity - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 8 Rule 6A(2) and (4) - A counter-claim has the same effect as a cross-suit, is to be treated as a plaint, and enables the court to pronounce final judgment on both original claim and counter-claim in the same suit. Held that relegating the defendant to a separate suit would defeat the purpose of the amendment and cause multiplicity of proceedings (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether in a suit for injunction, a counter-claim for injunction in respect of the same or a different property is maintainable, and whether a counter-claim can be made on a different cause of action.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with no costs; counter-claim for injunction held maintainable in suit for injunction even on different cause of action; trial court and High Court orders upheld.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 6A CPC confers statutory right to set up counter-claim independent of plaintiff's claim
- counter-claim not confined to money suits
- cause of action need not relate to original cause of action
- counter-claim treated as cross-suit
- object is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings
- cause of action must accrue before time for written statement expires
