Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajeev Gandhi Gruha Nirmana Sahakari Sangha, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, Smt. Sulochana, in O.S. No. 273/2020 before the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi. The respondent filed a written statement along with a counter claim seeking declaration of title and possession. The petitioner filed I.A. No. V under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order VIII Rule 6(c) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the counter claim. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the counter claim on 17.03.2023, holding that the counter claim was barred by res judicata and lacked cause of action. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6(c) CPC, which allows a counter claim to be filed even if it is barred by limitation at the date of filing of the suit, provided it is within limitation on the date of filing of the written statement. The court noted that the counter claim arose out of the same transaction and was not barred by res judicata as the earlier suit was for a different relief. The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the counter claim at the threshold without trial. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the trial court was directed to consider the counter claim on merits in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Counter Claim - Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order VIII Rule 6(c) read with Section 151 CPC - The trial court rejected the counter claim filed by the defendant on the ground that it was barred by res judicata and lacked cause of action. The High Court held that the counter claim was maintainable as it arose out of the same transaction and was not barred by res judicata since the earlier suit was for a different relief. The court set aside the order and directed the trial court to consider the counter claim on merits. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Counter Claim - Maintainability - Order VIII Rule 6(c) CPC - A counter claim can be filed even if it is barred by limitation at the date of filing of the suit, provided it is within limitation on the date of filing of the written statement. The court held that the counter claim in the present case was within limitation and arose out of the same transaction, and therefore could not be rejected summarily. (Paras 5-8) C) Civil Procedure Code - Res Judicata - Applicability to Counter Claim - Section 11 CPC - The principle of res judicata does not apply to a counter claim if the earlier suit was for a different relief and the parties were not the same. The court found that the earlier suit was for permanent injunction, while the counter claim sought declaration of title and possession, and hence res judicata was not attracted. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the counter claim filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order VIII Rule 6(c) read with Section 151 of CPC on the ground that the counter claim was barred by res judicata and lacked cause of action.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi in O.S.No.273/2020 on I.A.No.5 is quashed. The trial court is directed to consider the counter claim on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Order VIII Rule 6(c) CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Counter claim
- Rejection of plaint
- Cause of action
- Res judicata
- Abuse of process of court
