The case is between Rajul Manoj Shah @ Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth, and Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel, embodying a critical question of Law, i.e., whether counterclaims can be filed by the Defendant against the Co-Defendant?
The facts of the case were that a bungalow in a cooperative housing society situated near Stadium Char Rasta in Ahmedabad belongs to Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth’s father, and upon his demise, the said property was owned by her and her brother jointly. However, her brother has sold the said property to a third party, i.e. Defendant No. 2, without any partition of the suit property. Hence, the contention of the Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth was that her brother or his successors have no locus standi to sell their share without partition of the property. However, after the death of the brother, the Third party sued them and prayed for the specific performance of the Agreement to sell.
The Trial Court rejected this application, holding that it was filed nine years after the suit was instituted and three years after issues were framed, and also because a counter-claim cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant. However, the Gujarat High Court reversed this decision, holding that the cause of action arose only after the Nazir’s appointment and allowed the counter-claim to be taken on record.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s decision. The Court held that under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC explicitly provides that a counter-claim must be against the plaintiff and not solely against a co-defendant. Furthermore, the Court emphasised that counter-claims cannot be filed after issues have been framed.
The significance of this case lies in clarifying the scope of counter-claims under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC while upholding procedural fairness in civil litigation. The ruling provides legal certainty by holding that counter-claims cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant and cannot be entertained once issues have been framed.