Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 561 of 2014, challenged an order passed by the trial court under Order 8 Rule 6A and 6C of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which excluded their counter claim with liberty to file a fresh suit. The respondent No.1 (plaintiff) had filed the suit for perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, claiming to have purchased the suit property from defendant No.3 (father of petitioners) via a registered sale deed dated 25/02/2014 for Rs.36,00,000. The petitioners (defendant Nos.1 and 2) alleged that the sale was preceded by a loan transaction and that they had issued a notice to the credit society regarding the property. They filed a counter claim seeking relief in relation to the same property. The trial court excluded the counter claim, holding that it was not maintainable in a suit for perpetual injunction. The High Court examined the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC, which allows a defendant to set up a counter claim against the plaintiff, even if it exceeds the plaintiff's claim or is not a money claim. The court noted that the counter claim arose out of the same transaction and was filed within the time allowed. The court held that the trial court's order was improper and set it aside, directing the trial court to proceed with the counter claim along with the original suit. The court emphasized that the purpose of Order 8 Rule 6A is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to allow all disputes between the parties arising from the same transaction to be resolved in one suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Counter Claim - Order 8 Rule 6A CPC - Maintainability in Injunction Suit - The court held that a counter claim is maintainable even in a suit for perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as Order 8 Rule 6A CPC does not restrict counter claims to money suits only. The trial court erred in excluding the counter claim with liberty to file a fresh suit, as the counter claim arose out of the same transaction and could be adjudicated together. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Exclusion of Counter Claim - Order 8 Rule 6C CPC - Improper Exercise - The court held that the trial court's order excluding the counter claim with liberty to file a fresh suit was improper because the counter claim was filed within the time allowed and arose from the same cause of action. The court set aside the order and directed the trial court to proceed with the counter claim along with the original suit. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a counter claim filed by defendants in a suit for perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can be excluded by the trial court with liberty to file a fresh suit, and whether such exclusion is proper under Order 8 Rule 6A and 6C of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 19th January 2015, and directed the trial court to proceed with the counter claim along with the original suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Counter claim is maintainable in a suit for perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Order 8 Rule 6A CPC allows counter claim even if it exceeds the plaintiff's claim or is not a money claim
- exclusion of counter claim with liberty to file fresh suit is improper when counter claim arises out of same transaction
