Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court of Gujarat's order that permitted defendant no. 2 to amend his written statement and file a counter-claim in a suit for declaration and injunction -- The appellant had filed the suit in 2012 challenging an agreement to sell executed by her sister-in-law (defendant no. 1) in favor of defendant no. 2 -- After defendant no. 1's death, a Nazir was appointed as defendant no. 1 by the High Court -- Defendant no. 2 later sought to amend his written statement to add a counter-claim for specific performance and partition -- The Trial Court dismissed the application citing delay, abuse of process, and non-maintainability against a co-defendant -- The High Court allowed the petition under Article 227, but the Supreme Court held that counter-claims cannot be filed after issues are framed and are not maintainable against co-defendants, restoring the Trial Court's order
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VIII Rule 6A — Counter-claim— Suit for declaration and injunction filed by plaintiff regarding joint family property— Defendant sought to amend written statement and introduce counter-claim after framing of issues— Counter-claim sought specific performance of agreement to sell and partition— Trial Court rejected counter-claim — filed after long delay and after framing of issues— Held that counter-claim cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant— Relief of specific performance found barred by limitation— High Court allowed counter-claim under Article 227— Supreme Court held counter-claim not maintainable— Counter-claim must be primarily against the plaintiff, not exclusively against a co-defendant— Counter-claim cannot be entertained after framing of issues— Trial Court order restored (Paras 17–25). B) Constitutional Law — Article 227 of the Constitution of India— Scope of supervisory jurisdiction examined— High Court interfered with a discretionary procedural order of Trial Court— Supreme Court held no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference— Article 227 cannot be used to re-appreciate facts or substitute trial court discretion— High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction— Interference set aside and appeal allowed (Paras 12–16, 27)
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of maintainability of a counter-claim filed after framing of issues and against a co-defendant under CPC
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Trial Court's order dated 05.08.2021 dismissing defendant no. 2's application for amendment and counter-claim
