Facts Of The Case:
Procedural History:
The suit was initially instituted by the appellant in 2012 before the City Civil Court in Ahmedabad. The pivotal procedural juncture occurred when defendant no.2 filed an application in 2021 to amend his written statement and introduce a counter-claim. The Trial Court dismissed this application, citing inordinate delay, the stage of the proceedings (as issues had been framed in 2019), and the legal impermissibility of a counter-claim against a co-defendant. Aggrieved by this dismissal, defendant no.2 filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, allowed the petition and set aside the Trial Court’s order, permitting the amendment and the filing of the counter-claim. It is against this reversal by the High Court that the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, which ultimately set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s decision.
READ ALSO:Accessibility is a Right, Not a Charity: Supreme Court’s Powerful Ruling on Disability
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made crucial observations on the scope and timing of a counter-claim under the Code of Civil Procedure. It authoritatively held that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A must be a claim by the defendant against the plaintiff and cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant, as it would convert the suit into an impermissible interpleader litigation. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while the rules do not prescribe a rigid timeline, a counter-claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues in the suit, as such a belated filing defeats the legislative intent of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring a speedy trial. The Court found that allowing a counter-claim at such a advanced stage, especially one that was time-barred and sought a qualitatively different remedy, would be an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. It held that the counter-claim filed by defendant no.2 was not maintainable in law as it was directed solely against a co-defendant (the estate of the deceased sister-in-law) and not against the plaintiff, which is a mandatory requirement under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the application for the counter-claim was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court as it was filed belatedly, long after the framing of issues in the suit, which is the outer limit for entertaining such claims. Consequently, the order of the Trial Court, which had dismissed the application to amend the written statement and file the counter-claim, was restored.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rajul Manoj Shah Alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth Versus Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1109 Civil Appeal No.: [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5635 of 2023] Date of Judgement: September 12, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Download The Judgement Here