Recently, the Calcutta High Court addressed a unique procedural dispute in a commercial suit, where a party sought permission to file a rejoinder and an additional written statement in response to a counter-claim raised not by the plaintiff but by another co-party. The move sparked a debate over the proper scope of counter-claims and the rights of co-parties under civil procedure law, raising questions about whether one defendant can respond to a counter-claim lodged by another.
In the multi-party suit, one party had filed a counter-claim along with its written statement. Another co-party, which had already filed its written statement in response to the plaint, approached the Court seeking leave to respond to this counter-claim. The applicant argued that Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) permits “any of the parties” to file additional pleadings with the Court’s leave, contending that the term “parties” should include co-defendants when the counter-claim affects them. To support this argument, the applicant relied on earlier judgments.
The Plaintiff opposed the application, emphasising that counter-claims under Order VIII Rules 6A to 6G are strictly confined to disputes between the plaintiff and a defendant. It was argued that procedural provisions do not allow co-defendants to litigate among themselves within the same suit, and permitting such a course would create a trial within a trial, leading to unnecessary complications and delays. The Plaintiff also highlighted that the judgments cited by the applicant were inapplicable, as they involved amended plaints or election petitions governed by separate statutory frameworks, which could not be equated with regular civil proceedings.
The Court made several important observations in the course of hearing the matter. It held that a counter-claim is statutorily restricted to claims by a defendant against the plaintiff and cannot be used by one defendant to raise claims against another co-defendant. Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the Court clarified that the expression “parties” in Rule 9 of Order VIII must be read in the context of counter-claims, meaning that only the plaintiff may file a reply to a counter-claim. It was observed that permitting a co-party to respond to another party’s counter-claim would result in parallel litigation within the same suit, which is not recognised under the CPC. The Court further noted that the judgments relied upon by the applicant were legally and factually irrelevant. The attempt to file an additional written statement was considered a tactic that could harass and delay the proceedings of the commercial suit.
After considering the arguments and observing the procedural framework, the Court dismissed the application and directed the applicant to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within two weeks, with proof of payment to be submitted to the plaintiff’s advocate. This ruling reinforces the strict boundaries of counter-claims under the CPC and highlights that co-defendants cannot initiate litigation against each other within the same civil suit, ensuring that commercial disputes proceed without procedural obstructions.
Case Title: Eden Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd Vs Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd And Ors
Case No.: CS-COM/306/2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Aniruddha Roy
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Adv Rajarshi Dutta, Adv. Sarbajit Mukherjee, Adv. Deepak Jain, Adv. Jishnu Dutta
Counsel for the Defendant: Adv. Kushal Chatterjee, Adv. Subhashis Mitra, Adv. Shibjit Mitra, Adv. Debanik Banerjee, Adv. Steven S. Biswas, Adv. Abir Lal Chakraborty, Adv. Arijit Mohinder.
Picture Source :
