LexSH. JAG MOHAN CHAWLA AND ANR. versus DERA RADHA SWAMI SATSANG AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
SH. JAG MOHAN CHAWLA AND ANR.
A
v .
DERA RADHA SWAMI SATSANG AND ORS.
MAY 7, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PA TT ANAIK, JJ .]
B
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 8, Rules 6-A to 6-G.
Counter-claim by defendmit-Maintainability of-Need not relate to
original cause of action-But could be made on an independent and different
C
cause of action-Even if it accrned after institution of suit-In a suit for
injunction, counter-claim for injunction in respect of the same or a differellt
property, maintainable . .
The appellants-plaintiffs laid a suit for perpetual injunction to
restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession of the D
. property. The respondents pleaded in their written statement that they had
purchased land .situated in some other area and were in possession and
· ehjoymtnt of the .said land. They sought counter-claim of permanent in-
juncth~n to testrain the appellants from interfering with their possession
and enjoyment of the said land. The appellants had filed their replica, i.e., E
additional written statement contemplated under Order 8, Rule 6-E, Code
of Civil procedure, 1908 disputing the averments made by the respondent
in·(heir counter-claim .• They also pleaded that the counter-claim was not
maintainable. An application filed by the appellant under Order 8, Rule 6-C
and Section 151 CPC praying to exclude-the counter-claim fi'om tbe written
statement was dismissed. The High Court also dismissed the revision peti-
F
tion with a direction to the trial Court to decide, as an issue, whether
property in dispute was the same which was the subject matter of the
counter-claim and to dispose of the suit after recording findings. Being
aggriev-ed, the appeUants preferred the present appeal.
On behalf of the appe1lants it was contended that in a suit for injunc-
tion counter-claim was ·not maintainable and that the direction issued by
the High Court to identify the land to which the counter-claim related and
was referable to the property in dispute was also not consistent.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
509
G
H
:'iiO
SU I'RF\11·: C:OUR 1' Rl·l'UlU"S !19Wi) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
U ELD : l.l. It is true that in money suits, decree must be conformable
B
to Order 10, Rule IS, {'ode of Civil Pmcedure, liJOS hut the object of amend-
ments intruduced by Rules 6A to 6G are confermrnt of a statutory right to the
defendant to set up a counter-claim imlepcndeut of the claim on the ba:-.is of
which the plaint ill laid the suit, on his own cause of action. In sub-rule (l) of
Rule 6A, the language is so cmu.:hed \\ith words of\\ide width as to enable the
parties to bring his own independent cause uf action in respect of any claim
that would he the :-~ubject matter of an independent suit. TI1erebj, it is no longer
con tined to money claim or to cause of action or the same nature as original
action of the plaintitl: It need not relate to or be conn~cted with the original
cause of action or matter 11leaded by the plaint ill. The words ''any right or claim
C
in respect of cause of action accruing with the defendant" would ~how that the
cause of action from which the counter-claim arbes need not necessarily arise
!Tom or have any nexus with the cause of action or the plaintitl that occasinned
tu lay the suit. The only limitation is that the cause of action should arise bcl"orc
the expiry of the time fixed for tiling the written statement. TilC defendant may
set up a cause uf adion which has accrued to him ~:Yen alter the institution of
D the suit. The cuuntcr-daim expressly is treated as a cross suit with all the
indicia of pleadings as a plaint induding the duty tu aver his cau~c of action
and also payment of retJUisite court tee thc1-eon. Instead of rell-gating the
defendant to an independent suit, to avert multiplicity of the prncceding and
neccUess Jlrotractinn, the legislature intended to try both the suit and the
E
counter-claim in the same suit as suit and cross suit and have them disposed
F
. of in the same trial. llws, a defendant can claim any right by way of a
cuuntcr-daim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even
though it i~ independent of the cause nt"action awn·cd by the plaintiff and have
the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to tile
a separate snit. [513-E-H; 514-A-C]
1.2. Oppnrtunity also has been provided under Rule 6-C to seek
deletion uf the counter-claim. The trial CourtExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.