Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit, R.C.S. No. 655 of 2023, filed by respondent no.1 (plaintiff) before the trial court seeking declaration and injunction in respect of certain properties. The petitioners, who were original defendant nos.1 to 4, filed written statements and subsequently, on 26 November 2024, before settlement of issues, filed Application Exh.93 along with a counter claim. The trial court, by order dated 19 September 2025, rejected the application seeking permission to register the counter claim. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, challenging the order. The central legal question was whether a counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires prior permission of the court for registration. The petitioners contended that the counter claim was filed before settlement of issues, pertained to the subject matter and parties in the suit, and its acceptance would avoid multiplicity of litigation. They argued that the trial court's rejection was an error of jurisdiction and that the plaintiff could take recourse to Order XII Rule 11 of the CPC. The respondent no.1 opposed the counter claim as hopelessly barred by limitation and contended it was beyond the properties and parties involved in the suit, liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VIII Rule 6A. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A and observed that a counter claim is in the nature of a plaint. Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6A makes the rules applicable to a plaint applicable to a counter claim, and therefore no permission is required for filing or registering a counter claim, just as no permission is required for filing a plaint, even if barred by limitation. The court held that the entire exercise of seeking permission and the trial court's refusal was bereft of legal sanction and without jurisdiction. By implication of Sub-Rule 4, Order VII Rule 11 would apply to a counter claim, enabling the plaintiff to seek its rejection if barred by law or lacking cause of action. The court refrained from commenting on merits and kept all contentions open. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the parties to take recourse to Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C, and it was directed that the counter claim shall stand registered. The request for suspension of the judgment was rejected.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Counter Claim - Registration Without Permission - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 6A - The trial court rejected Application Exh.93 seeking permission to register a counter claim filed before settlement of issues in R.C.S. No. 655 of 2023. The High Court held that no provision in Order VIII Rule 6A requires such permission; a counter claim is in the nature of a plaint and gets registered upon filing. Held that the rejection was without jurisdiction and the counter claim shall stand registered (Paras 9-13). B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Counter Claim - Application of Order VII Rule 11 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11, Order VIII Rule 6C - Since a counter claim is treated as a plaint, a plaintiff can seek its rejection if barred by limitation or lacking cause of action. The court observed that the proper remedy is an application under Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C, not an objection to registration. Held that all contentions on merits are kept open for such proceedings (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Application Exh.93 for permission to register a counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC; whether a counter claim requires prior permission of the court for registration; what remedies are available to a plaintiff against a counter claim barred by limitation or lacking cause of action.
Final Decision
Writ Petition disposed of; impugned order refusing registration of counter claim set aside; counter claim shall stand registered; parties given liberty to take recourse to Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C CPC; all contentions kept open; request to suspend judgment rejected
Law Points
- A counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC is in the nature of a plaint and does not require prior permission for registration
- A counter claim gets registered upon filing
- There is no provision in Order VIII Rule 6A for soliciting permission to register a counter claim
- By implication of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6A
- Order VII Rule 11 applies to a counter claim
- Aggrieved plaintiff may seek rejection of a counter claim under Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C CPC
- Trial court's refusal to register a counter claim without considering its plaint nature is without jurisdiction
