Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel 2025 INSC 1109 - Order VIII Rule 6A CPC - Counter Claim

Case Name and Neutral Citation

• Case Name: Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr.
• Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1109

Coram

• Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Judgment Date

• Date: September 12, 2025

Caselaws and Citations Referred

• Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra AgnihotriCitation: (2020) 2 SCC 394
• Rohit Singh & Ors. v. State of BiharCitation: (2006) 12 SCC 734
• Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. v. Praveen Kumar SinghCitation: AIR 2006 SC 1474
• Jag Mohan Chawla v. Dera Radha Swami SatsangCitation: (1996) 4 SCC 699
• Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Tejrao Bajirao MhaskeCitation: (2023) 19 SCC 175
• Satyender v. SarojCitation: (2022) 17 SCC 154
• Munishamappa v. M. Rama ReddyCitation: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1701
• Mahendra Kumar v. State of M.P.Citation: (1987) 3 SCC 265
• Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of IndiaCitation: (2005) 6 SCC 344 : AIR 2005 SC 3353

Statutes/Laws Referred

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
• • Order VIII Rule 6A (Counter-claim by defendant)
  • Order XXII Rule 4A (Substitution of parties)
  • Order VI Rule 17 (Amendment of pleadings)
• Limitation Act, 1963
• • Article 54 (Limitation for specific performance)
• Partition Act, 1893
• Specific Relief Act, 1963
• • Section 16(c) (Readiness and willingness for specific performance)
• Constitution of India
• • Article 227 (Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts)

What is a counter-claim in a civil suit, according to Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC?

A counter-claim, as per Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), allows a defendant in a suit to assert a right or claim against the plaintiff. This claim can arise either before or after the plaintiff files the suit, but it must be made before the defendant submits their defense or before the deadline for doing so expires. The counter-claim functions as a "cross-suit," enabling the court to issue a final judgment that covers both the plaintiff's original claim and the defendant's counter-claim. The primary legislative intent behind this provision is to prevent the multiplicity of legal proceedings and ensure that all related disputes between the parties are resolved in a single trial, thus avoiding prolonged litigation. A counter-claim is treated as a plaint and must adhere to the rules applicable to plaints, including disclosing a cause of action and paying necessary court fees.

Against whom can a counter-claim generally be filed?

A counter-claim is primarily intended to be filed against the plaintiff in the suit. While it may incidentally seek relief against co-defendants, a counter-claim directed solely against co-defendants is generally not maintainable. The purpose of Order VIII Rule 6A is to address the defendant's cause of action against the plaintiff, not to transform the litigation into an interpleader suit where defendants litigate exclusively among themselves.

What was the specific issue regarding the counter-claim in the case of Rajul Manoj Shah v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel?

In the case of Rajul Manoj Shah v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel, Defendant No. 2 attempted to file a counter-claim seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell and partition of the suit property. Crucially, this counter-claim was directed not against the plaintiff, Rajul Manoj Shah, but primarily against the deceased original Defendant No. 1 (represented by a court-appointed Nazir). The Trial Court and subsequently the Supreme Court held that such a counter-claim, directed solely against a co-defendant, was not permissible under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC. The proposed relief of specific performance against the deceased co-defendant and the subsequent partition claim were deemed to not be maintainable as a counter-claim in the plaintiff's suit.

Is there a strict time limit for filing a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC?

While Order VIII Rule 6A CPC does not explicitly prescribe a strict time limit for filing a counter-claim after the initial written statement, it does impose limitations regarding the accrual of the cause of action. The Supreme Court has clarified that a counter-claim cannot be filed at any time after the written statement, and it must comply with the limitations provided under the Limitation Act, 1963. More significantly, the Supreme Court has generally held that a defendant cannot be permitted to file a counter-claim after the issues in the suit have been framed and the suit has substantially proceeded. This is to prevent undue delay, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and ensure speedy justice.

What factors do courts consider when deciding whether to allow a delayed counter-claim?

When considering a delayed counter-claim (i.e., after the written statement but before issues are framed), courts must adopt a balanced approach and exercise discretion judiciously. They take into account various factors, including:

• The period of delay in filing the counter-claim.
• Whether the counter-claim is within the prescribed limitation period for its cause of action.
• The reasons provided for the delay.
• The defendant's assertion of their right.
• The similarity of the cause of action between the main suit and the counter-claim.
• The potential cost of fresh litigation if the counter-claim is disallowed.
• Whether allowing the counter-claim would cause injustice or abuse of process.
• Prejudice to the opposite party.
• The specific facts and circumstances of each case. However, the crucial outer limit is that a counter-claim should generally not be permitted after the issues have been framed.

Why did the Trial Court initially reject the application for the counter-claim in the present case?

1. The Trial Court dismissed Defendant No. 2's application for a counter-claim on several grounds:

• Delay: The application was filed a long time after the suit began (9 years) and after issues were framed (2 years), which the court considered an abuse of process.
• Against Co-defendant: The counter-claim primarily sought relief (specific performance) against the deceased Defendant No. 1 (represented by a court officer) and not against the plaintiff, which is generally not maintainable as per established legal principles.
• Limitation: The claim for specific performance of an agreement from 2011 was found to be barred by the Limitation Act, as it was filed in 2021, far exceeding the three-year limit. The court questioned why Defendant No. 2 waited so long, especially after the agreement was challenged and even after Defendant No. 1's death.

1. How did the High Court's decision differ from the Trial Court's, and what was its reasoning?
2. The High Court reversed the Trial Court's decision, allowing Defendant No. 2 to file the counter-claim. Its primary reasoning was that the "cause of action" for Defendant No. 2 to file the counter-claim had arisen only after the court-appointed Nazir was substituted as Defendant No. 1 on February 10, 2020. The High Court concluded that since the application for the counter-claim was filed soon after this appointment, the delay was excusable. It also disagreed with the Trial Court's finding that the counter-claim was solely against a co-defendant, suggesting that reliefs were sought against the Nazir and the original plaintiff (appellant), and that the counter-claim was maintainable after the administrator's appointment. The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to allow the application.
3. What was the Supreme Court's final decision regarding the maintainability of the counter-claim in this case?
4. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeal filed by Rajul Manoj Shah (the original plaintiff). The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, concluding that the High Court had committed an error. The Supreme Court reiterated two key principles:

• A counter-claim must primarily be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be maintained solely against a co-defendant. In this case, the specific performance and partition claims were essentially against the estate of the deceased co-defendant, not the plaintiff.
• A counter-claim should generally not be permitted after issues have been framed in the suit, especially after significant delay and when the suit has proceeded substantially. The counter-claim was filed nine years after the suit and two years after issues were framed, and was also found to be barred by limitation.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that Defendant No. 2 was not entitled to raise the prayer of specific performance by way of counter-claim and set aside the High Court's order.