http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SH. JAG MOHAN CHAWLA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DERA RADHA SWAMI SATSANG & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/05/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE, 7TH DAY OF MAY, 1996 Present:               Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamay               Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik Pramod Dayal, Adv. for the appellants. H.N. Salve,  Sr.Adv., N.D.Garg,  Rajiv Kr.  Garg, Advs. with him for the Respondents                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Courts was delivered: K. RAMASWAMY, J      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  dated August 1, 1994 in Civil Revision No.1272 of 1994 of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  The appellants- plaintiffs laid  the suit  No.896/92 before  the  Sub-Judge, Amritsar  for   perpetual   injunction   to   restrain   the respondents from  interfering with  their possession  of the property bearing  Khasra No.456,  Purana Bazar,  G.T.  Road, Beas. On  receipt of the summons in the suit, the respondent filed written  statement pleading, inter alia, that they had purchased the  lands in  Khasra No.103/1  situated at  Budha Theh, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, Punjab and that they are  in possession  and enjoyment  of 18  marlas of the said  land.     They   sought  counter-claim   of  permanent injunction to  restrain the appellants from interfering with their possession  and enjoyment  of  the  said  land.    The appellants had filed their replica, i.e., additional written statement contemplated  under Order 8, Rule 6E CPC disputing the averments made by the respondent in their counter-claim. They  also   pleaded   that   the   counter-claim   is   not maintainable.   An application  under Order  8, Rule  6C and Section 151  CPC was  filed praying  to exclude the counter- claim from  the written statement.  The Subordinate Judge by his order dated November 11, 1193 dismissed the application. The revision  came to  be dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order  with direction to the trial Court to decide, as an  issue, whether  property in dispute is the same which is the subject matter of the counter-claim and to dispose of the suit  after recording  findings.   thus, this  appeal by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

special leave.      Shri Pramod  Dayal, learned  counsel for the appellant, contended that  in a suit for injunction, cause of action is based upon the threat of dispossession and interference with peaceful possession  and enjoyment  of the  suit property by the respondent.   The  counter-claim is  referable  only  in relation to  money suits.   In  other  words,  in  suit  for injunction, the  counter-claim is  not  maintainable.    The trial Court,  Therefore, ought to have excluded the counter- claim from  the written  statement and allowed the petition. He also  contended that  the direction  issued by  the  High Court to  identify the  land where the counter-claim relates to and  is referable to the property in dispute, is also not consistent.   The counsel  for the  respondent  Shri  Harish Salve resisted the contentions and argued that the object of the Amendment  in Rule  6A to  G is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings  and   all  claims  whether  based  on  same  or different cause of action between parties to the suit should be tried  and decided  in the same proceedings as delineated in Rule 6A etc.      The question,  therefore is:  whether  in  a  suit  for injunction, counter-claim  for injunction  in respect of the same or  a different  property  is  maintainable?    Whether counter-claim can  be made on different cause of action?  it is true  that preceding  PC Amendment  Act, 1976,  Rule 6 of Order 8  limited the remedy to set off or counter-claim laid in a  written statement  only in  a  money  suit.    By  CPC Amendment Act, 1976, Rules 6A to 6G were brought on statute. Rule 6a(1)  provides that  a defendant  in a  suit  may,  in addition to  his right  of pleading  a set off under Rule 6, set up  way  of  counter-claim  against  the  claim  of  the plaintiff, any  right or  claim in  respect of  a  cause  of action accruing  to  the  defendant  against  the  plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has  delivered his  defence  or  before  the  time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damage or not. A limitation  put in  entertaining the  counter-claim is  as provided  in  the  proviso  to  sub-rule  (1),  namely,  the counter-claim shall  not exceed  the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.  Sub-rule (2) amplified that such counter-claim shall  have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to  enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit,  both on  the original  claim and on the counter- claim.   The plaintiff  shall be  given liberty  to  file  a written  statement   to  answer  the  counter-claim  of  the defendant within  such period  as may be fixed by the Court. The counter-claim is directed to be treated, by operation of sub-rule (4)  thereof, as  a plaint governed by the rules of the pleadings  of the  plaint.   Even before  1976  Act  was brought  on   statute,  this  Court  in  Laxmidas  Dahyabhai Kabarwala v.  Nanabhai Chunilal  Kabarwala &  Ors. [(1964) 2 SCR 567],  had come  to consider  the case of suit and cross suit by  way of  counter-claim.  Therein, suit was filed for enforcement of  an agreement  to the effect that partnership between the  parties had been dissolved and the partners had arrived at  a specific amount to be paid to the appellant in full satisfaction of the share of one of the partners in the partnership and  thereby decree  for settlement  of accounts was sought.    Therein  the  legal  representatives  of  the deceased partner  contended in  the written  statement,  not only denying  the settlement  of accounts  but also  made  a counter-claim in  the written statement for the rendition of accounts against  the appellant  and paid  the court  fee as plaint.   They also  sought a  prayer to  treat the counter-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

claim as  a cross  suit.  The trial Court dismissed the suit and the  counter-claim. On  appeal, the learned Single Judge accepted the  counter-claim on  a plaint in a cross suit and remitted the  suit for  trial in  accordance with  law.   On appeal,  per   majority,  this   Court  had   accepted   the respondents’ plea in the written statement to be  a counter- claim for  settlement of  their claim and defence in written statement as  a cross  suit.   The  counter-claim  could  be treated as  a cross suit and it could be decided in the same suit without  relegating the parties to a fresh suit.  It is true that  in money  suits, decree  must be  conformable  to Order 20,  Rule 18,  CPC but  the object  of the  amendments introduced by  Rules 6A  to 6G are conferment of a statutory right to the defendant to set up a counter-claim independent of the  claim on  the basis  of which the plaintiff laid the suit, on  his own  cause of action.  In sub-rule (1) of Rule 6A, 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 of 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 that occasioned  to lay  the suit.   The  only limitation is that the  cause of action should arise before the time fixed for filing the written statement expires.  The defendant may set up a cause of action which has accrued to him even after the institution of the suit.  The counter-claim expressly is treated as a cross suit with all the indicia of pleadings as a plaint  including the duty to aver his cause of action and also payment of the requisite court fee thereon.  Instead of relegating the  defendant to  an independent  suit, to avert multiplicity of  the proceeding  and needles protection, the legislature intended  to try  both the suit and the counter- claim in  the same suit as suit and cross suit and have them disposed of  in the same trial.  In other words, a defendant can claim  any right  by way  of a counter-claim in the same suit as suit and cross suit and have them disposed of in the same trial.  In other words, 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.   Acceptance of the contention of the appellant  tends to  defeat the  purpose  of  amendment. Opportunity also  has been  provided under  Rule 6-C to seek deletion of  the counter-claim.   It  is seen that the trial Court had  not found  it necessary  to delete  the  counter- claim.   The High  Court directed to examine the identity of the property.  Even otherwise, it being an independent cause of action,  though the  identity  of  the  property  may  be different, there  arises no  illegality warranting dismissal of counter-claim.   Nonetheless,  in the same suit, both the claim in  the suit  and the counter-claim could be tried and decided and disposed of in the same suit.  In Mahendra Kumar & Anr.  v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [(1987) c SCC 265] where a  Bench of  two Judges  of this Court was to consider the controversy, held that since the cause of action for the counter-claim  had  arisen  before  filing  of  the  written statement, the counter-claim was maintainable.  The question

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

therein was of limitation with which we are not concerned in this case.   Thus  considered we find that there is no merit in the appeal.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.