The Supreme Court reversed the High Court of Gujarat's order that permitted defendant no. 2 to amend his written statement and file a counter-claim in a suit for declaration and injunction -- The appellant had filed the suit in 2012 challenging an agreement to sell executed by her sister-in-law (defendant no. 1) in favor of defendant no. 2 -- After defendant no. 1's death, a Nazir was appointed as defendant no. 1 by the High Court -- Defendant no. 2 later sought to amend his written statement to add a counter-claim for specific performance and partition -- The Trial Court dismissed the application citing delay, abuse of process, and non-maintainability against a co-defendant -- The High Court allowed the petition under Article 227, but the Supreme Court held that counter-claims cannot be filed after issues are framed and are not maintainable against co-defendants, restoring the Trial Court's order
A) Civil Procedure — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VIII Rule 6A — Counter-claim— Suit for declaration and injunction filed by plaintiff regarding joint family property— Defendant sought to amend written statement and introduce counter-claim after framing of issues— Counter-claim sought specific performance of agreement to sell and partition— Trial Court rejected counter-claim — filed after long delay and after framing of issues— Held that counter-claim cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant— Relief of specific performance found barred by limitation— High Court allowed counter-claim under Article 227— Supreme Court held counter-claim not maintainable— Counter-claim must be primarily against the plaintiff, not exclusively against a co-defendant— Counter-claim cannot be entertained after framing of issues— Trial Court order restored (Paras 17–25).
B) Constitutional Law — Article 227 of the Constitution of India— Scope of supervisory jurisdiction examined— High Court interfered with a discretionary procedural order of Trial Court— Supreme Court held no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference— Article 227 cannot be used to re-appreciate facts or substitute trial court discretion— High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction— Interference set aside and appeal allowed (Paras 12–16, 27)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Trial Court's order dated 05.08.2021 dismissing defendant no. 2's application for amendment and counter-claim
Citation: 2025 LawText (SC) (09) 44
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 5635 of 2023
Date of Decision: 2025-09-12
Case Title: The Issue of maintainability of a counter-claim filed after framing of issues and against a co-defendant under CPC
Before Judge: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA J. , JOYMALYA BAGCHI J.
Equivalent Citations: 2025 INSC 1109
Advocate(s): Mr. Ritin Rai, Mr. Pradhuman Gohil
Appellant: Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth
Respondent: Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr.
Nature of Litigation: Civil suit for declaration and injunction regarding property rights and an agreement to sell
Remedy Sought: Appellant sought declaration that defendant no. 1 had no right to transfer property and that the agreement to sell was null and void -- Defendant no. 2 sought to amend written statement to add counter-claim for specific performance and partition
Filing Reason: Appellant filed suit in 2012 upon learning of agreement to sell by sister-in-law (defendant no. 1) to defendant no. 2 -- Defendant no. 2 filed application in 2021 to amend written statement and add counter-claim after Nazir was appointed as defendant no. 1
Previous Decisions: Trial Court dismissed defendant no. 2's application on 05.08.2021 -- High Court allowed defendant no. 2's petition on 16.01.2023, permitting amendment and counter-claim
Issues: Whether a counter-claim can be entertained after issues are framed in a suit under CPC Whether a counter-claim is maintainable against a co-defendant under CPC
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant argued that counter-claim cannot be entertained after issues are framed, relying on Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri -- Appellant argued that counter-claim is not maintainable against a co-defendant, relying on Rohit Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar Respondent argued innovatively on Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC and relied on 27th Law Commission Report to support maintainability of counter-claim
Ratio Decidendi: A counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC cannot be entertained after issues are framed in a suit -- A counter-claim is not maintainable against a co-defendant -- Procedural delays and abuse of process are valid grounds for dismissal of such applications
Judgment Excerpts: The Court held that a counter-claim cannot be entertained after the issues are formulated in the suit The Court held that a counter-claim cannot be made against a co-defendant
Procedural History: Appellant filed suit in 2012 -- Defendant no. 1 died in 2013 -- Appellant applied for deletion of defendant no. 1 in 2017, granted in 2019 -- Defendant no. 2 applied for substitution under Order XXII Rule 4A CPC in 2019, dismissed in 2019 -- High Court quashed orders and appointed Nazir as defendant no. 1 in 2020 -- Defendant no. 2 filed application for amendment and counter-claim in 2021 -- Trial Court dismissed application in 2021 -- High Court allowed petition in 2023 -- Supreme Court reversed High Court order in 2025
