GURBACHAN SINGH versus BRAG SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 24-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GURBACHAN SINGH 
v. 
BRAG SINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 24, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 8 Rule 6(A)(l) 
Suit-Defendant-Extent of pennissibility to raise counter claim in 
C written statement-Position before and after 1976 Amendment dis-
cusse~Held : In a suit for perpetual injunction counter claim for possession 
is pennissible-Counter claim filed within two months from the date of the 
suit held not time ba"ed. 
The petitioner and the 8th respondent (plaintiffs) filed a suit for 
D perpetual injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 7 from dispossessing 
them from the suit land or part thereof. In t,heir written Statement respon-
dents 1 to 7 raised counter claim for possession on the ground that the 
plaintiffs have trespassed into their land and they were in unlawful pos-
session. The Trial Court rejected the contention raised by the plaintiffs 
E 
that in a suit for perpetual injunction the respondents could not lay any 
counter claim for possession under Order 8 Rule 6(A) (1) of the Code of 
Civil Procedure. Consequently the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' 
suit and granted decree for possession to defendants of their portion of 
land. The decree of Trial Court was affirmed by the first appellate Court 
F 
as well as the High Court. 
Dismissing the plaintiffs' Special Leave Petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In a suit for injunction, the counter-claim for possession 
also could be entertained, by operation of Order 8 Rule 6(A)(l) of the Code 
G of Civil Procedure, 1908. [684-D] 
1.2. However, by laying the counter claim pecuniary jurisdiction of 
the Court cannot be divested and the power to try the suit already enter-
tained cannot be taken away by accepting the counter claim beyond its 
H pecuniary jurisdiction. [684-C] 
682 
GURBACHAN SINGH v. BHAG SINGH 
683 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) A 
No. 27264 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.95 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1190 of 1994. 
Ujjagar Singh and Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The petitioner and the 8th respondent had filed a suit for perpetual 
injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 7 from dispossessing them from 
B 
the suit land or part thereof. Respondents/defendants filed the written C 
statement contending that the petitioner and the 8th respondent had 
trespassed into their land of an extent of 3 kanals and they are in unlawful 
possession. Thereby, they raised counter claim, in the written statement, 
for possession. The Trial Court, while dismissing the suit of the petitioners, 
granted decree for possession of two kanals, two marlas and one biswas D 
comprising survey numbers mentioned therein. On appeal, it was con-
firmed and the High Court confirmed it in R.S.A. No. 1190/94 on May 18, 
1995. Thus this Special Leave Petition. 
The contention raised in the courts below was that in a suit for 
perpetual injunction, the respondents could not lay any counter claim for E 
possession. Order 8 Rule 6(A)(l) of the C.P.C., 1908 as amended in 1976 
reads thus: 
"A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a 
set-off under Rule 6, set up by way of counter-claim against the 
claim of the plaintiffs, any right or claim in respect of a cause of 
action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before 
or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered 
his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence 
has ezj>ired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim 
for damages or not : 
Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary 
limits of the jurisdiction of the Court." 
It is true that Rule 6A(a) was introduced by Amendment Act of 1976. 
F 
G 
Preceding the amendment, it was settled law that except in a money claim, H 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
counter claim or set off cannot be set up i.n other suits. The Law Commis-
sion of India had recommended, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, 
right to the defendants to raise the plea of set off in addition to a counter 
claim in Rule 6 in the same suit irrespective of the fact whether the cause 
of action for counter claim or set off had accrued to defendant either 
B 
before or after the filing of the suit. The limitation was that the counter 
claim or set off must be pleaded by way of defence in the w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.