Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbara Singh vs Malkiat Singh And Another on 15 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:038057
C. R. No.1470 of 2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.121
Case No. : C. R. No.1470 of 2024
Date of Decision : March 15, 2024
Dalbara Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
Malkiat Singh and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. R. K. Aggarwal, 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 16.02.2024, passed by
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha (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 filed by the
respondents, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present revision
petition, are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants/respondents from dispossessing the petitioner
illegally or forcibly or causing any type of interference in the peaceful
possession of the petitioner over tenanted premises of workshop, as detailed
in the head note of the plaint on the ground that petitioner had taken a
workshop on rent from the respondents w.e.f. 01.07.2022. A rent note dated
MONIKA 28.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) was also executed between the parties. Monthly
2024:PHHC:038057
rent was agreed @ Rs.50,000/-. Advanced cheques for payment of rent
w.e.f. 01.07.2022 to 31.05.2023 (for 11 months) were handed over to the
respondents. Despite payment of rent in advance through the said cheques,
respondents started interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner by
threatening him to vacate the premises or enhance the rent. So, the
petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction dated 05.06.2023
(Annexure P-2).
3. Respondents contested the suit by filing written statement
(Annexure P-3) along with a counter-claim. In the written statement, factum
of tenancy was denied. They took a stand that the demised premises was
given to the petitioner on license. In the counter-claim, respondents sought
possession of the workshop in question and also recovery of damages.
4. Faced with this situation, petitioner moved an application
(Annexure P-4) under Order 8 Rule 6(C) CPC for exclusion of counter-claim
filed by the respondents on the ground that the same is not maintainable and
is barred under the law as the respondents should file separate suit for any
alleged cause of action accrued in their favour. Respondents filed reply
(Annexure P-5) to the said application. Learned Trial Court, after
considering pleadings of both the parties, dismissed the application, which
led to the filing of presnet revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the license is
always without consideration but the case of the respondents is that it was
given for consideration. There is rent note dated 28.06.2022 with regard to
possession of tenancy. The landlord cannot wriggle out of it. The counter-
claim for possession of demised premises is not maintainable and same
2024:PHHC:038057
should be excluded from the suit.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner and have also perused the paper book.
7. The petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the
respondents from dispossessing the petitioner illegally or forcibly or causing
any type of interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over
tenanted premises of workshop, on the ground that he is in possession of the
suit property as tenant w.e.f. 01.07.2022 as per rent note dated 28.06.2022 @
Rs.50,000/- per month. He was regularly paying the rent.
8. The respondents filed written statement along with counter-claim
on the ground that the said workshop was given to the petitioner as licensee
on a license of Rs.50,000/- per month and license agreement was with effect
from 01.07.2022 to 31.05.2023, but the petitioner, with mala fide intention,
got executed "Karaya-nama" from the respondents. The petitioner has no
right to retain the possession after 31.05.2023 as the license was not
renewed. As per the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC, a
defendant may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6,
set up by way of counter-claim against the plaintiff, any right or claim in
respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff.
The certain limitations under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC reads as under :-
"6A. Counter-claim by defendant - (1) A defendant in
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
2024:PHHC:038057
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."
9. The case of the petitioner is based on the fact that he is in
possession of the suit property as tenant of the respondents, as per rent note
but the case of the respondents is that the petitioner is in possession of the
suit property as licensee, on payment of license fee and "Karaya-nama" was
got executed by fraud. These are all triable issues. A counter-claim cannot
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 action. Since both the parties to the lis
are the same and suit property is the same, this Court is of the view that
there is no ground to ask the respondents to file a separate suit and counter-
claim cannot be excluded from the main suit. Accordingly, there is no
2024:PHHC:038057
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.
