High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to exclude a counter-claim. The Court held that the counter-claim seeking injunction on adjacent property was maintainable under Order 8 Rule 6-C CPC.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.03.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
CRP No. 368 of 2014 and
M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Vs.
M. Rajeswari .. Respondent/3rd Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed in I.A. 165 of 2013 in O.S. No. 150 of 2012 dated 05.09.2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode.
For Petitioners : Mr. V.S. Kesavan
O R D E R
The plaintiff is before this Court challenging the order of dismissal of their application to reject the respondent counter claim in the suit filed by the petitioners.
The said order is challenged before this Court.
"6C. Exclusion of counter-claim :
Where a defendant sets up a counter-claim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim but in an independent suit, the plaintiff may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counterclaim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter-claim may be excluded, and the Court may, on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit."
Though the petitioners contend that the counter claim can be raised by way of a separate suit, a perusal of the counter claim made by the respondent, especially, at paragraph 5 of the counter claim, the cause of action would reveal that, the respondent's property is situated adjacent to the petitioner's property and the compound wall, described in the prayer (g) of the plaint, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner putting up any kind of permanent structures and constructions in suit item No.2. Whereas, the counter claim made by the respondent is with regard to the adjoining property, which divides the petitioner's property and the defendant's property by virtue of a compound wall. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a different property.
" In a suit for injunction, counterclaim for injunction in respect of the same or a different property is maintainable. A defendant can claim any right by way of a counter-claim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a separate suit. In sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 A, the language is so couched with words of wide width as to enable the parties to bring his own independent cause of action in respect of any claim that would be the subject matter of an independent suit. Thereby it is no longer confined to money claim or to cause of action on the
same nature as original action of the plaintiff. It need not relate to or be connected with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the plaintiff. The words "any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing with the defendant" would show that the cause of action from which the counter-claim arises need not necessarily arise from or have any nexus with the cause of action of the plaintiff."
The defendant can claim any property by way of counter claim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him eventhough it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and the same cause of action can be adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a separate suit. So, the view beyond is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, especially when the dispute is between the same parties.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V) Dated: 10.04.2014 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode.
1 CC to Mr. V.S. Kesavan, Advocate SR.No.12691
CRP No. 368 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014 kk(CO) JJM (10.04.2014)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to exclude the respondent's counter-claim under Order 8 Rule 6-C of CPC.
Whether a defendant can raise a counter-claim for injunction regarding adjacent property in a suit for permanent injunction.
Whether the maintenance of counter-claim avoids multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jag Mohan Chawla & anr. vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang and Ors.Relied on¶15
Jag Mohan Chawla & anr. vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2222 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. K. Rajasekaran
Dr. K. Kalyanasundaram
K. Sellammal
M. Rajeswari
N.Kirubakaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
