Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mandar Suresh Bhatwadekar and Dr. Shrirang Arun Limaye, were defendants in two civil suits (RCS/2249/2019 and RCS/2248/2019) filed by the respondent, Shree Nav Vinayak Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioners sought permission to file counter-claims in the respective suits. The trial court, by identical orders, rejected their applications on the ground that the counter-claims were filed after the written statements had already been filed. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard both petitions together as they arose from identical facts. The court noted that the only issue was whether a counter-claim could be filed after the written statement but before the settlement of issues. The court held that Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not prohibit the filing of a counter-claim after the written statement; it only requires that the counter-claim be filed before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. However, the court interpreted the provision liberally, stating that the purpose of a counter-claim is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to allow all disputes between the parties to be adjudicated in one suit. The court found that the trial court's rejection was too technical and that the counter-claim could be allowed as it was filed before the settlement of issues. The court set aside the trial court's orders and allowed the petitioners to file their counter-claims, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 each to the respondent. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Counter-Claim - Order VIII Rule 6A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Permissibility of filing counter-claim after written statement - The court held that a counter-claim can be filed even after the written statement has been filed, provided it is before the settlement of issues. The trial court's rejection on the ground that the counter-claim was filed after the written statement was erroneous. The court emphasized that Order VIII Rule 6A is procedural and should be interpreted liberally to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 4-6) B) Civil Procedure - Multiplicity of Proceedings - Order VIII Rule 6A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Purpose of counter-claim - The court observed that the purpose of a counter-claim is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to enable the court to adjudicate all disputes between the parties in one suit. The court allowed the counter-claim to be filed, setting aside the trial court's order. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a counter-claim can be filed after the written statement has been filed but before the settlement of issues, and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for counter-claim on the ground that it was filed after the written statement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the trial court's orders, and permitted the petitioners to file counter-claims in the respective suits, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 each to the respondent.
Law Points
- Counter-claim can be filed after filing of written statement but before settlement of issues
- Order VIII Rule 6A CPC is procedural and not penal
- Courts should adopt liberal approach to avoid multiplicity of proceedings
