The Supreme Court set aside a counterclaim filed by two impleaded defendants in a suit for specific performance, ruling that a counterclaim cannot be directed against a co-defendant and must be one against the plaintiff as required under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC, 1908.
The Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff, overturning the Jharkhand High Court’s refusal to interfere with the Trial Court’s order permitting the counterclaim to proceed.
The dispute stemmed from an oral agreement under which the plaintiff claimed to have purchased 0.93 acres of land from the original sole defendant, having paid the entire sale consideration and taken possession. After the suit for specific performance was filed, two individuals, later impleaded as defendants 2 and 3, asserted an independent agreement dated 01.12.2002 to purchase the same land. They raised a counterclaim seeking conveyance of the entire property, despite admitting that 43 decimals had already been sold to the plaintiff’s father and acknowledging that they had paid only part of the consideration under their alleged agreement.
The Court observed that impleadment of the other two defendants was necessary because the plaintiff would also have to claim recovery of possession in the event of a decree of specific performance. However, the court noted, the 2nd and 3rd defendants have already been impleaded; therefore, the suit does not suffer from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties.
Referring to Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 12 SCC 734, the Supreme Court reiterated that a counterclaim cannot be directed against co-defendants, and must relate to a cause of action against the plaintiff. Finding that defendants 2 and 3 lacked any concrete or enforceable claim and had initiated their counterclaim only in 2006 well beyond the limitation period, the Court set it aside.
While the impleadment of the two defendants was left undisturbed to address possession issues, all their substantive claims were rejected. The Court remitted the matter to the Trial Court for adjudication of the suit, with all contentions open except the counterclaim, which now stands conclusively dismissed.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ram Lal Roy, AOR Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Respondent- Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Mr. Sriram P., AOR Mr. Sriram Parakkat, Adv. Ms. Neha Kumari, Adv. Mr. Anandhu S Nair, Adv. Ms. Maneesha Sunilkumar, Adv.
