Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Lal vs Ranbir And Others on 15 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:038056
C. R. No.1643 of 2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.123
Case No. : C. R. No.1643 of 2024
Date of Decision : March 15, 2024
Shiv Lal .... Petitioner
vs.
Ranbir and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-7),
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pataudi, (for
brevity - Trial Court), whereby application dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-
5) under Order 8 Rule 6-C CPC, filed by the petitioner, for exclusion of
counter-claim, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present revision
petition, are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction, thereby challenging the allotment of Rasta by
defendant/respondent no.9 - Director of Consolidation, Haryana,
Chandigarh, vide order dated 18.01.1978, on the ground that the said order
was obtained by playing fraud by Amar Singh. In the said suit, defendant
no.1 has set up a counter-claim to the effect that the plaintiff and his brother
MONIKA have illegally occupied the Rasta in dispute. Demarcation of the property in
2024:PHHC:038056
dispute was obtained, in which it was found that the plaintiff and his brother
have illegally occupied the land and Rasta.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that cause
of action to file the suit arose on 09.06.2021, whereas for the counter-claim,
it is mentioned that cause of acation to file the same arose on 22.06.2021 at
the time of demarcation. Thus, the cause of action of suit is quite different
from cause of action of counter-claim. The subject matter of the suit is
regarding illegal allotment of Rasta in Killa No.13/2/2(0-8) out of
agricultural land of the plaintiff/petitioner whereas the counter-claim is
regarding encroachment and possession of encroached area over Killa
No.13/2/2(0-8). The relief claimed in the counter-claim has no nexus with
the relief claimed in the main suit. The plaintiff/petitioner is a senior citizen.
The case of the plaintiff/petitioner is based on documentary evidence and
some oral evidence, whereas to decide the counter-claim, decision on
complicated demarcations would be required, which will take a long time.
So, proceedings of the counter-claim are required to be separated from the
main suit. Otherwise, it will complicate the matter. It has therefore been
prayed that counter-claim be excluded from the suit and ordered to be tried
separately.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner and have also perused the paper book.
5. A defendant can very well institute a counter-claim in order to
avoid multiplicity of litigation but subject to certain limitations. Order VIII
Rule 6-A CPC reads as under :-
"6A. Counter-claim by defendant - (1) A defendant in
2024:PHHC:038056
a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off
under rule 6, set up, by 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 damages or not:
Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the
pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.
(2) 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.
(3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written
statement in answer to the counter-claim of the
defendant within such period as may be fixed by the
Court.
(4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and
governed by the rules applicable to plaints."
6. A counter-claim can only be set up "against the claim of the
plaintiffs" and the same can even be on a separate or independent cause of
action. It is so held in Jag Mohan Chawla and another vs. Dera Radha
Swami Satsang and others reported as (1996) 4 SCC 699 that counter-
claim by a defendant can be made even on a separate or independent cause
of acation. The case of the plaintiff/petitioner pertains to Rasta in Killa
No.13/2/2(0-8). Since both the parties to the lis are the same, this Court is of
the view that there is no ground to ask the defendants/respondents to file a
separate suit and counter-claim cannot be excluded from the main suit.
2024:PHHC:038056
Accordingly, there is illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by
learned Trial Court and there is no ground to interfere in the same.
7. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition,
being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed in limine.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
March 15, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
