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.