Explore the detailed legal analysis undertaken by the court in a recent case concerning the filing of a counter-claim. The court’s in-depth examination of procedural laws, discretion in case management, and the importance of upholding the principles of justice. Stay tuned for a deep dive into the complexities of legal processes and their impact on the final resolution of disputes.
Facts
- The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
- The plaintiffs were not given adequate opportunity to contest the notice of motion for taking the counter-claim on record.
- The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Division Bench.
- The Division Bench considered it proper to remit the matter for fresh consideration by the Single Judge.
- The Order passed by the Single Judge dated 2 May, 2019 granting leave to the Respondent to file Counter Claim almost after a period of seventeen years was impugned.
- The matter appeared before the Court for the first time on 2 May, 2019, when the Junior Advocate representing the Appellants requested time to file Reply.
- The appellant acquired all rights in the suit property by testamentary succession and settlement with other legal heirs.
- Chamber Summons filed to delete other defendants from Suit No 1821 of 2004.
- Appeal considered by Division Bench of High Court on 20.01.2021 for expeditious disposal of the suit.
- Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed in this Court as SLP (C) No. 1786 of 2021 by the appellant.
- Order passed on 26.02.2021 considered the advanced age of the petitioner and the willingness of parties to abide by the suit outcome.
- Defendant-appellant filed a counter-claim on 07.09.2018 in the registry of the High Court.
- The Learned Judge declined to grant time and passed an Order in favor of the Respondent.
- Suit proceedings since 2004 expedited by the Division Bench with suitable directions.
- Appellants to file response to Notice of Motion No. 1014 of 2019 within one week.
- The order passed by the Court on 26.02.2021 raised a peculiar issue regarding the petitioner’s request to dispose of the suit property due to his advanced age.
Also Read: Legal Authority and Res Judicata in Representation Matter
Issue
- Appellant filed Notice of Motion seeking leave to file counter-claim for possession of suit property
- Application for leave to file counter-claim was made within two weeks of Division Bench’s order
- Learned Single Judge to consider application and respondent’s objections on merits and in accordance with law
- Appeal disposed of with liberty granted for application for leave
- Pending Notice of Motion also disposed of in view of appeal’s disposal.
Also Read: Analysis of Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence
Arguments
- Background of the suit filed by plaintiffs-respondents seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement for transfer of property.
- Appellant claiming right, title, and interest in the suit property based on a probated will.
- Legal heirs of the deceased owner being other defendants in the suit.
- Division Bench directing all parties to cooperate for early disposal of the suit.
- Appellant’s submission that order for taking counter-claim on record should not be reopened in light of a previous court order.
- Criticism of Division Bench’s order for lack of reason to set aside Single Judge’s order.
- Argument against accepting counter-claim filed 13 years after the initial written statement without proper procedure.
- Issues with the surreptitiously filed counter-claim by the appellant.
- The appellant filed a notice of motion seeking leave to file a counter-claim for effective adjudication of disputes between the parties.
- The appellant’s senior counsel argued that the previous order was cryptic and did not consider applicable law, including Rule 95 of the Bombay High Court Rules.
- The senior counsel referred to a 3-Judge Bench decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri and Ors., stating that a belatedly filed counter-claim is not permissible.
- It was mentioned that the subject matter of the previous SLP was about the transfer of the suit property to a third party and not about the counter-claim.
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the decision in Ashok Kumar Kalra does not prevent the appellant from filing the counter-claim, and the principles of law in that case support the appellant’s position.
- The respondent’s counsel stated that they will not object to the application for leave to file the counter-claim, and it can be dealt with on its own merits by the Single Judge handling the suit.
Also Read: Ensuring Fair Investigation: High Court’s Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The Division Bench did not consider the impact of the Court’s previous order on the suit proceedings when re-opening the question of filing the counter-claim.
- Rule 95 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules and Order VIII Rule 6-A of the CPC grant discretion for filing a counterclaim, but it should ideally be done before the framing of issues for trial.
- The court should consider factors such as the reason for the delay, prejudice to the opposite party, and the similarity of cause of action between the main suit and the counterclaim before allowing the filing.
- The counter-claim in question could not have been removed out of consideration merely because it was presented after a long time since filing of the written statement.
- Appellant’s reasons for the belated filing of the counter-claim included avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and settlement of disputes only in 2017, which were considered valid.
- The judgment emphasizes that discretion for allowing a counterclaim should not be used to unduly delay the process and should serve the interests of justice and the objectives of the amendment to CPC.
- The impugned order of the Division Bench is not being approved on its merits in the present case.
- The argument concerning the maintainability of the intra-court appeal against the order dated 02.05.2019 due to no valuable rights being involved was a small segment of the appellant’s arguments.
- The question considered was whether it is mandatory for a counter-claim of the defendant to be filed along with the written statement.
- The Court emphasized that procedural law should not render the court helpless.
- A wide discretion has been given to the Civil Court regarding the procedural elements of a suit.
- A counterclaim can be filed if two conditions are met: cause of action complies with Order 8 rule 6-A(1) and filed within the period specified under the Limitation Act.
- The purpose of procedural law is to make the legal process more effective in delivering substantial justice.
- Introduction of Rule 6-A in Order 8 CPC aims to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure final resolution of disputes.
- Allowing delayed filing of the counterclaim would render the provision redundant and defeat the intended purpose of the amendment, leading to a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
Decision
- The impugned Order dated 2 May, 2019 is set aside.
- Discovery and inspection to be completed by 1st February 2019.
- The Defendant to pay the full Court fee on the Counter Claim.
- The Plaintiff waives service of the Writ of Summons of the Counter Claim.
- The suit shall proceed from the stage where it is presently pending.
- The proposed purchasers (added respondents) to be impleaded in the suit and adopt the written statement and counter claim filed by the petitioner.
- No further written statements to be filed by the proposed purchasers.
- The parties to bear their own legal expenses in the present suit proceedings.
- The transfer deed to be executed within three weeks in the name of ‘AMAR LIFESPACES LLP’.
- The proposed purchasers to record an undertaking not to transfer their share or dissolve the firm during the suit proceedings.
Case Title: MAHESH GOVINDJI TRIVEDI Vs. BAKUL MAGANLAL VYAS (2022 INSC 1072)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007203-007203 / 2022
