Case Note & Summary
The appellant, defendant no.7 in Regular Civil Suit No. 8/1984, filed a counter claim against the Government of Goa (a co-defendant) after the original suit was dismissed for default. The counter claim was dismissed by the trial court. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The sole legal issue was whether a counter claim directed solely against co-defendants is maintainable. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rohit Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (now State of Jharkhand) & Ors. (2006(12) SCC 734), held that a counter claim must be directed against the plaintiff, though it may incidentally seek relief against co-defendants. A counter claim directed solely against co-defendants cannot be maintained, as it would convert the litigation into an interpleader suit. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal of the counter claim.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Counter Claim - Maintainability - Counter Claim Directed Solely Against Co-Defendants - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 8 Rule 6A - The appellant-defendant filed a counter claim only against co-defendants (Government of Goa) after the original suit was dismissed for default. The Supreme Court in Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar held that a counter claim must be directed against the plaintiff, though it may incidentally seek relief against co-defendants, but a counter claim directed solely against co-defendants cannot be maintained. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the counter claim was not maintainable. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a counter claim directed solely against co-defendants can be maintained in a civil suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the counter claim directed solely against co-defendants was not maintainable.
Law Points
- Counter claim must be directed against the plaintiff
- not solely against co-defendants
- Counter claim cannot convert litigation into interpleader suit
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 117
First Appeal No. 194 of 2000
Mr. A.F. Diniz for Appellant, Mr. G. Shirodkar for Respondent No.1
Communidade of Pirla, by its attorney Shri Dottu @ Dayanand Ananta Fal Dessai
1. Government of Goa by Forest Department, 2. Communidade of Provincia De Balli, 3. Shri Chandrakant Uttoma Chodankar, 4. Shri Vinayak Dharma Chodankar, 5. Union of India, 6. Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against dismissal of counter claim in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to challenge the dismissal of its counter claim against the Government of Goa.
Filing Reason
The appellant's counter claim was dismissed by the trial court.
Previous Decisions
The original suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 8/1984) was dismissed for default. The counter claim filed by defendant no.7 (appellant) was also dismissed.
Issues
Whether a counter claim directed solely against co-defendants is maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the counter claim was maintainable.
Respondent (Government of Goa) argued that the counter claim was not maintainable as it was directed solely against co-defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
A counter claim must be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though it may incidentally seek relief against co-defendants. A counter claim directed solely against co-defendants cannot be maintained, as it would convert the litigation into an interpleader suit.
Judgment Excerpts
Normally, a counterclaim, though based on a different cause of action than the one put in suit by the plaintiff could be made. But, it appears to us that a counterclaim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it, it may also claim relief against the co-defendants in the suit. But a counterclaim directed solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained.
Procedural History
The original suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 8/1984) was dismissed for default. The appellant, defendant no.7, had filed a counter claim against the Government of Goa (co-defendant). The counter claim was dismissed. The appellant filed First Appeal No. 194 of 2000 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa against the dismissal of the counter claim.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 8 Rule 6A
