LexRAJNI RANI & ANR. versus KHAIRATI LAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 971 RAJNI RANI & ANR. v. KHAIRATI LAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6862 of 2014) OCTOBER 14, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or. 2 r. 2 - Counter claim - Dismissal of counter claim as barred by principles of Or. 2 A B r.2 - Held: Can be challenged by preferring an appeal and c not by filing revision. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. When the counter-claim filed by the defendants is adjudicated and dismissed, finality is D attached to it as far as the controversy in respect of the claim put forth by the defendants is concerned. Nothing in that regard survives as far as the said defendants are concerned. If the definition of a decree is appropriately understood it conveys that there has to be a formal E expression of an adjudication as far as that Court i~ concerned. The determination should conclusively put to rest the rights of the parties in that sphere. When an opinion is expressed holding that the counter-claim is barred by principles of Order 2, Rule 2 C.P.C., it F indubitably adjudicates the controversy as rega·rds the substantive right of the defendants who had lodged the counter-claim. It cannot be regarded as an ancillary or incidental finding recorded in fhe suit. In the case at hand, the counter-claim which is in the"nature of a cross-suit G has been dismissed. Nothing else survives for the defendants who had filed the counter-claim. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Judge has the status of a decree and the challenge to the same has to be made 971 H - 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 10 S.C.R. A before the appropriate forum where appeal could lay by paying the requisite fee. It could not have been unsettled by the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 16, 17) [979-B-D; 981-C-E] B R. Rathinavel Chettiar and Anr. v. V. Sivaraman and Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 89: 1999 (2) SCR 313; Jag Mohan Chawla and Anr. v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 699: 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 509; Mis. Ram Chand Spg. & Wvg. Mills v. Mis. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Hathras and Ors. C AIR 1967 SC 1344: 1967 SCR 301; Jethanand and Sons v. D E State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 794: 1967 SCR 301; Abdul Rahman v. D.K. Kassim and Sons. AIR 1933 PC 58 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1999 (2) SCR 313 relied on Para 14 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 509 relied on Para 15 1967 SCR 301 relied on Para 16 1967 SCR 301 relied on Para 16 AIR 1933 PC 58 relied on Para 16 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. F 6862 of 2014. G H From the Judgment & Order dated 01.12.2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision · No. 900 of 2011. Arivind Arora, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Appellants. S.S. Nara, P.O. Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJNI RANI & ANR. v. KHAIRATI LAL & ORS. 973 DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The centrirorial issue that has A stemmed in this appeal by grant of special leave is whether an order of dismissal of the counter-claim being barred by principles of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) can be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P.C. or in exercise of power of 8 superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or is it required to be assailed by preferring an appeal. 2. The factual score need not be exposited in detail. Suffice it to state that one Phoolan Rani, wife of Om Prakash, c and another instituted Civil Suit No. 1078 of 2003 seeking a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the land admeasuring 1/9th share in the suit land and further praying for permanent injunction against the defendants. After issue of notice, the defendants entered contest and the defendant 0 Nos.12 to 14 filed a counter-claim putting forth that they had the right, title and interest as the original owner, Jeth Ram, had executeq a Will dated 18.5.1995 in their favour. 3. After the counter-claim was filed, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for dismissal of the counter-claim on the E foundation that the same did not merit consideration as it was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of C.P.C. It was set forth in the application that a suit for declaration was earlier filed by the present appellants along with others against the defendants and F a decree was passed in their favour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.