ROHIT SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR (NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND) AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 17-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ROHIT SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR (NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND) AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 17, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder VI/I, Rule 6A: 
Counter-claim-Cannot be raised after issues are framed and evidence 
C is closed-Hence, on facts, the entertaining of so-called counter-claim of 
defendants 3 to 17 by the Trial Court, after framing of issues for trial, was 
illegal and without jurisdiction. 
Counter-claim against co-defendant-Maintainability of-Held: 
D Counter-claim has to be necessarily directed against the plainliff. though 
incidentally or along with it, relief may also be claimed against the co-
defendanls-Bul a coumer-claim directed solely against the co-defendants 
cannot be maintained-On facts, defendants 3 to 17 had no claim as against 
the plaintiff except that they were denying the right put forward by the 
plaintiff and the validity of the document relied on by the plaintiff-They 
E were asserting a right in themselves and their whole case was directed 
against defendants I and 2-Such a counter-claim should not have been 
entertained by the Trial Court. 
A suit was filed against the Divisional Forest Officer and the State or 
Bihar as defendants I and 2 for declaration or title/recovery or possession in 
F respect or property. Arter trial, judgment was reserved by the Court. At that 
stage, Appellants claiming possession over the suit property, filed application 
for intervention in the suit which was allowed and they were impleaded as 
defendants 3 to 17. Thereafter certain other persons who claimed to be lessees 
or portions of the suit property were impleaded as defendants 18 to 20. The 
G suit went for further trial and further evidence including that of the 
interveners, evidence was again closed and ev~n arguments on the side of the 
interveners concluded. However the suit was dismissed for default since on 
behalf of the plaintiff there was a failure to address arguments. But the suit 
was subsequently restored. Thereafter defendants 3 to 17 filed application 
for amending its written statement which was allowed. The Trial Court held 
H 
278 
ROlllT SINGH " ST ATE OFBlllAR (NOW STATE OF JHARKllAND) 
279 
that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession or right of possession and A 
hence the suit was liable to be dismissed, but thereafter further held that after 
amendment of the written statement by defendants 3 to 17, there came into 
existence a counter-claim in terms of Order VIII, Rule 6A, CPC and since 
the plaintiff, defendants I and 2 or defendants 18 to 20 had not filed any answer 
to the counter-claim, that must be treated as a default under Order VIII, Rule B 
6E, CPC and defendants 3 to 17 should be granted a decree on the basis that 
the counter-claim had not been denied. First Appellate Court modified the 
decree of Trial Court by declaring the title and interest of defendants 3 to 17 
and granting them a decree for permanent injunction against defendants 1 
and 2 and defendants 18 to 20. High Court set aside the decree passed by the 
Trial and First Appellate Court and remanded the suit to Trial Court for C 
decision afresh. Hence the present appeals by defendants 3 to 17. 
Dismissing the appeals filed by defendants 3 to 17 and upholding the 
decision vacating the decree on the counter-claim, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is clear that after the evidence was closed, there was no D 
occasion for impleading the interveners. Even assuming that they were 
properly impleaded, after they had filed their written statement, the suit had 
gone for further trial and further evidence including that of the interveners 
had been taken, the evidence again closed and even arguments on the side of 
the interveners had been concluded. The suit itself was dismissed for default 
only because on behalf of the plaintiff there was a failure to address arguments. 
But the suit was subsequently restored. At that stage no counter-claim could 
E 
be entertained at the instance of the interveners. A counter-claim could be 
filed even after the written statement is filed, but that does not mean that a 
counter-claim can be raised after issues are framed and the evidence is closed. 
Therefore, the entertaining of the so called counter-claim of defendants 3 to F 
17 by the trial court, after the framing of issues for trial, was clearly illegal 
and without jurisdiction. On that short ground the counter-claim so called, 
filed by defendants 3 to 17 has to

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