A single judge bench of Bombay High Court comprising Hon’ble Justice M.S. Jawalkar held that under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code, the counterclaim shall not exceed the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the Court, however, there is no bar to the Civil Judge Senior Division to entertain the counterclaim which is in his pecuniary jurisdiction.
Brief Facts:
The present Revision Application is filed by the Applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 17/09/2022. It is the contention that the counterclaim would lie before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, and as the property is situated at Mul, the Civil Judge Junior Division has pecuniary jurisdiction so also territorial jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim. In view thereof, the Applicants herein filed an Application under Order VII Rule 10 for the return of the counterclaim. The Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 & 9 filed their reply. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the Application. Being aggrieved by the same, the Applicants filed the present Revision Application.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that in view of the Section 16(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, the counterclaim for partition would lie before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mul within whose jurisdiction the Suit Property is located. It was further submitted that looking at the valuation of the counterclaim, it ought to have been filed as a separate Suit before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mul.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the counterclaim is an integral part of the written statement and therefore, there is no question of not making the State Authorities a party. It is vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is perfectly justified. If Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code is seen, the only limit which is prescribed is that the counterclaim shall not exceed the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the Court, however, there is no bar to the Civil Judge Senior Division to entertain the counterclaim. In fact, to avoid the contrary judgments passed in respect of the same property or same dispute, the provision of the counterclaim is there so that one Court by one judgment decides the same in one trial.
Observations of the Court:
Firstly, this Court perused Rule 6-A of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code and observed that the only restriction in entertaining a counterclaim is that it shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Though there is a provision under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, this one is an exception to the general rule.
Further, a plain reading of Order VIII, Rule 6-A(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and referred judgments makes it clear to the Court that counterclaim is a cross-suit to enable the Court to pronounce final judgment both on the original claim and counterclaim. Therefore, in view of this settled position, the Court held that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the Application.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the application, held that Civil Judge Senior Division has jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim which is within pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge Senior Division, and the Civil Judge Senior Division can entertain the Suit filed against the State as well as the individual persons.
Case Title: Vivek and others vs State of Maharashtra and others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice M.S. Jawalkar
Case no.: CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 137/2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Shri M. Deo
Advocate for the Respondent: Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari and Shri D.Pathak
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
