MAHESH GOVINDJI TRIVEDI versus BAKUL MAGANLAL VYAS & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 12-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 565
565
MAHESH GOVINDJI TRIVEDI
v.
BAKUL MAGANLAL VYAS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7203 of 2022)
OCTOBER 12, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VIII, r.6-A – Counter-
claim by defendant – Bombay High Court Rules – r.95 – Suit for
specific performance filed by respondent-plaintiff – Notice of motion
moved by the appellant-defendant to take the belatedly filed counter-
claim on record, allowed by Single Judge – Order set aside by
Division Bench – On appeal, held: Rules of procedure are intended
to subserve the cause of justice rather than to punish the parties in
conduct of their case – The counter-claim in question could not
have been removed out of consideration merely because it was
presented after a long time since after filing of the written statement
– On facts, neither the requirements of Or.VIII, r.6-A or r.95 of the
Rules nor the principles enunciated and explained in Ashok Kumar
Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri and Ors. reported as [2019] 17
SCR 214 operate as a bar over the prayer of the appellant for taking
the belatedly filed counter-claim on record, which was indeed filed
before framing of issues – Further, impact of the order dtd.26.02.21
passed by Supreme Court (in relation to the incidental proceedings
pertaining to the suit) on the procedural aspect concerning pleadings
has clearly been that existence of the counter-claim on record was
taken by this Court as a fait accompli, and this order left a little,
rather nil, scope for upsetting the existing pleadings – Also, in this
order, Supreme Court emphasised for expeditious proceedings –
There was no reason for re-opening of the question relating to the
filing of counter-claim after the said order – Even when the said
order was placed before the Division Bench, it did not consider its
purport and meaning as also its impact on the suit proceedings and
on the question of filing of counter-claim and proceeded in a rather
cursory manner in directing reconsideration of the prayer of the
appellant for taking the counter-claim on record – It did not consider
the relevant aspects of the proceedings in the suit and the law
applicable thereto as also without considering the likely impact of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
its order on the proceedings, which had already taken place and
which were under progress – Order passed by the Division Bench is
set aside while that of the Single Judge is restored – Pleadings.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In order dated 26.02.2021, this Court took note
of the submissions made by the parties, including the anxiety of
the appellant to dispose of the property in view of his advanced
age as also the undertaking of the prospective purchasers to abide
by the outcome of the suit. After interacting with the learned
counsel for the concerned parties, this Court passed the order
delineating the conditions agreed upon by the appellant and the
prospective purchasers. This Court also took note of the
apprehension expressed on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents
about the legal heirs of the appellant later on claiming rights in
the property and counter submissions in this regard on behalf of
the appellant. Thus, having settled the matter relating to the
prayer of the appellant for leave to transfer the right, title and
interest in the property in question, this Court expected all the
parties to extend the co-operation in early disposal of the suit as
already directed by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para
6][578-E-H; 579-A]
1.2 The rules of procedure are intended to subserve the
cause of justice rather than to punish the parties in conduct of
their case. The counter-claim in question could not have been
removed out of consideration merely because it was presented
after a long time since after filing of the written statement.
Indisputably, the counter-claim was filed on 07.09.2018 and until
that date, issues had not been framed in the suit. In fact, the
issues were framed only on 05.12.2018, the very date on which
the learned Single Judge in the first round of these proceedings
took the counter-claim off the record for no permission/leave
having been sought for its presentation. In appeal against the
order dated 05.12.2018, the Division Bench permitted filing of
the requisite application seeking permission to file the counter-
claim, while taking note of the submissions of the plaintiffs-
respondents that th

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