M/S. GANESH LAND DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD. THR DIRECTORS GANPAT B RAUTversusSHRADHHA REALTORS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THR PARTNERS AVINASHKUMAR K SRIVASTAV

                                                                          -CRA-409-2026.DOC




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 409 OF 2026


                      M/s Ganesh Land Developers & Construction
                      Private Limited, a Company through
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
                      its Directors:-
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
                      1-1 Ganpat Bhaskar Raut, Age Adult
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.29
22:15:47 +0530
                      Occupation : Business,
                      1-2 Rajendra Laxman Patil, Age Adult
                      Occupation : Business,
                      1-3 Bhalchandra Raghunath Raut,
                      Age Adult, Occupation Business
                      Having office at Near Prakash
                      Talkies, Behind ICICI Bank,
                      Ground Floor, Palghar – 401 404                       ...Applicant

                            Versus

                      1. Shradhha Realtors, a Partnership
                      Firm through Partners:
                      1-1 Avinashkumar Kamleshwar
                      Srivastav, Age 52 years,
                      Occupation Business,
                      1-2 Chetna Raichand Shah,
                      Age 52 years, Occ. Business,
                      Both having office at Plot No. 38,
                      Kamal Kunj Bungalow, Vishnu
                      Nagar, Mahim Road, Palghar (W),
                      Palghar, Tal & Dist. Palghar

                      2. Dhanrajsingh Hanumansingh Rajput
                      Hajari, Age Adult, Occ. Business,

                      3. Laxmidevi Dhanrajsingh Rajput Hajari,
                      Age Adult, Occ. Business/Agriculture

                      4. Tejrajsingh Dhanrajsingh Rajput Hajari
                      Age Adult, Occ. Business/Agriculture

                      ARS/SAINATH                           1/26
                                                        -CRA-409-2026.DOC



5. Rajashri Alias Rajashri Tina
Dhanrajsingh Rajput Hajari,
Age Adult, Occ. Business/Agriculture
All residents of Jasoda Bhavan,
Near M.S.B. Office, Hanuman Chowk,
Old Palghar.

6. M/s R.K. Builders & Developers,
Partnership Firm through Partners
6-1 Kamal Mahadeo Dube,
Aged 42 years, Occ Business/Agriculture
Office at Hanuman Tekdi, Tekdi
Vevur, Palghar, Tal. & District Palghar.               …Respondents


Mr. Sanjiv Sawant, with Bhakti Wast, i/b Samir Suryawanshi, for the
      Applicant.
Mr. Sumit Kothari, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Juzer Udaipuri, with Sofia Udaipuri and Firdaus Udaipuri, for
      Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

                            CORAM :        N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                    RESERVED ON :          7th SEPTEMBER 2026
                PRONOUNCED ON :            29th SEPTEMBER 2026


JUDGMENT:

1.    This Revision Application is directed against an order dated 4 th

July 2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Palghar, whereby the

counter-claim filed by the Applicant in the Suit (RCS No. 35 of 2026),

instituted by Respondent No.1, was directed to be excluded under the

provisions of Order VIII Rule 6-C of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(“the Code”).




ARS/SAINATH                         2/26
                                                          -CRA-409-2026.DOC

2.    The background facts leading to this Application can be

summarized as under:

2.1   Under a registered Sale Deed dated 10th August 2011, Respondent

No. 1-the Plaintiff in RCS No. 35 of 2026, claimed to have purchased

the land bearing Survey No. 87/A/1 and 88/A/1, situated at Mouje

Palghar, more particularly described in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Plaint

(“the suit properties”).

2.2   Under a Sale Deed dated 6 th November 2020, M/s R.K. Builders

And Developers (D6) claimed to have purchased an undivided share in

Survey Nos. 93/A/2/K/3 from Ranjitsing Hajari and another.

2.3   M/s Ganesh Land Developers And Construction Private Limited

(D5) asserted that it was the holder of the lands bearing Survey No.

93/A/2/K/2, Survey No. 86/1/E/1 and Survey No. 121/3, more

particularly described in paragraphs 2A and 2B of the Counter-claim,

filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in RCS No. 35 of 2026.

2.4   In the wake of the disputes over the demarcation and possession

of the respective suit lands, the Plaintiffs in RCS No. 35 of 2026, alleged

that Defendant No.1 and R. K. Builders and Developers (D6) were the

common holders of the land bearing Survey No. 121/3 and Survey No.

93/A/2/K/3 situated on the northern side of the suit properties. On

some portion of the northern Side boundaries, the land bearing Survey




ARS/SAINATH                           3/26
                                                            -CRA-409-2026.DOC

Nos. 93/A/2/K/2 and Survey No. 86/1, held by Defendant No.5 were

situated.

2.5   The Plaintiff has obtained permission from the Planning Authority

to erect a structure comprising ground plus seven floors. The

Defendants made an attempt to encroach over the suit properties.

2.6   On 5th November 2025, the Defendants and their hirelings

caused obstruction to the possession of, and the development being

carried out by, the Plaintiff over the suit properties with the prior

approval of the Planning Authority. On 7th November 2025 also the

Defendants and their hirelings barged into the suit properties and

caused damage to the barbed wire fencing thereof. Hence, Plaintiff

sought a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants from

entering into the suit properties, causing obstruction to the possession

and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit properties and also from

forcibly evicting the Plaintiff from the suit properties.

2.7   The Applicant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein-original

Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 resisted the suit by filing Written Statement

alongwith Counter-claim. The Defendants contended that, the Plaintiff

has obtained permission from the Planning Authority to erect a

building, over the land which does not exist at the suit site. The Plaintiff

had obtained the building permission from the Planning Authority

either by misleading or in connivance with the officers of the Planning


ARS/SAINATH                            4/26
                                                         -CRA-409-2026.DOC

Authority. On the strength thereof, the Plaintiff is trying to encroach

upon the property of the Defendants, described in paragraph 2A and 2B

of the Counter-claim (“Counter-claim property”). The Defendants have

pleaded a counter version in regard to the incident that has allegedly

occurred on 5th November 2025.

2.8   The Defendants have thus sought a declaration that the

Defendants are the owners of the Counter-claim property and for the

consequential relief to restrain the Plaintiff from causing obstruction to

the possession and enjoyment of the Defendants, and           committing

encroachment, over the Counter-claim property.

2.9   During the pendency of the suit, the Defendants preferred an

Application for appointment of the Court Commissioner to demarcate

the suit and counter-claim properties and an Application under Order XI

Rules 12 and 14 of the Code, seeking production of the documents

relating to 4th April 2026 Sale Deed on the premise that the suit

properties described in the Plaint did not exist and a boundary dispute

has arisen between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed

an Application for extension of ad-interim relief. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6,

in turn, sought a status-quo order.

2.10 By an order dated 27th March 2026, the trial Court after observing

that the dispute between the parties was in relation to the boundaries of

the suit properties and counter-claim properties, directed both the


ARS/SAINATH                           5/26
                                                         -CRA-409-2026.DOC

parties to maintain status-quo regarding the suit properties.

2.11 It seems that on 12th February 2026, a measurement was carried

out at the instance of Defendant No.5.

2.12 Thereafter,     Respondent    No.1-Original    Plaintiff   filed   an

Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, seeking rejection of

the Counter-claim on the ground that it was unconnected with the suit

properties, and another suit, being RCS No. 84 of 2023, wherein the

Counter-claim property was the subject matter, instituted by the third

parties, was sub-judice.

2.13 The Defendants-Plaintiffs in the Counter-claim resisted the

Application.

2.14 By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to

invoke the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 6-C of the Code to

exclude the Counter-claim from RCS No. 35 of 2026. The learned Civil

Judge was of the view that the suit properties and the Counter-claim

properties were different. There was no nexus between the Suit

properties and Counter-claim properties. Nor there was physical

overlapping of the properties. Thus, the Counter-claim deserved to be

excluded.

2.15 Being aggrieved, the Defendants have invoked the revisional

jurisdiction of this Court.




ARS/SAINATH                          6/26
                                                          -CRA-409-2026.DOC

3.      I have heard Mr. Sanjiv Sawant, the learned Counsel for the

Applicant, Mr. Sumit Kothari, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1

and Mr. Juzer Udaipuri, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5,

at some length.

4.    Mr. Sanjiv Sawant, the learned Counsel for the Applicant,

submitted that the learned Civil Judge completely misconstrued the

nature of the Suit and the Counter-claim and scope of the provisions

contained in Order VIII Rule 6-C of the Code. Amplifying the

submissions, Mr. Sawant would urge, a bare perusal of the averments in

the Plaint itself indicates that the Plaintiff has approached the Court

with categorical assertions that the Counter-claim properties are

situated on the northern side of the suit properties and, in their capacity

as the holders of the adjoining lands, the Defendants have allegedly

attempted to commit encroachment over the suit properties and

threatened to dispossess the Plaintiff therefrom.

5.    Mr. Sawant invited the attention of the Court to the description of

the suit properties in the Plaint, especially the boundaries thereof, and

the averments in paragraph 19 of the Plaint. The learned Civil Judge,

according to Mr. Sawant, was thus not at all justified in holding that

there was no nexus between the properties described in the Plaint and

the Counter-claim.




ARS/SAINATH                           7/26
                                                         -CRA-409-2026.DOC

6.     At any rate, according to Mr. Sawant, it is not the requirement of

law that the subject matter of the Suit and Counter-claim must be

identical. Tenability of the Counter-claim depends upon the accrual of

the cause of action to the Defendants against the Plaintiff and not the

identity of the subject matter of the Suit and the Counter-claim. The

learned Judge thus committed a manifest error on facts in observing

that there was no nexus between the suit properties and the Counter-

claim properties, and a grave error of law in holding that, in the

absence of the identity of the Suit properties and the Counter-claim

properties, the Counter-claim deserved to be excluded.

7.     To buttress the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sawant placed a very

strong reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jag

Mohan Chawla And Anr Vs Dera Radha Swami Satsang and Ors, 1

wherein it was enunciated that the Counter-claim need not relate to or

be connected with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the

Plaintiff.

8.     Mr. Juzer Udaipuri, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to

5, supplemented the submissions of Mr. Sawant. It was urged that the

claim of the Plaintiff was demonstrably flase.

9.     In opposition to this, Mr. Sumit Kothari, the learned Counsel for

Respondent No.1-Plaintiff, supported the impugned order. It was urged

that the suit properties and Counter-claim properties were completely
1      (1996) 4 SCC 699.
ARS/SAINATH                          8/26
                                                           -CRA-409-2026.DOC

distinct and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge was justified in holding

that there was no nexus between the two sets of properties. In any

event, there is no element of prejudice likely to be caused to the

Applicant and co-Defendants as they can institute a separate suit

seeking declaration, ownership and possession of the Counter-claim

properties.

10.   Mr. Kothari further submitted that, the Defendants do not have an

absolute and unqualified right to file the Counter-claim. The Code

empowers the Court to exclude the Counter-claim where the Court

comes to the conclusion that the claim raised by the Defendants ought

not to be disposed by way of Counter-claim but in an independent suit.

As a second limb of this submission, Mr. Kothari would urge, the

learned Civil Judge has exercised the discretion under the provisions of

Order VIII Rule 6-C of the Code, objectively. It cannot be said that the

discretion has been exercised injudiciously or arbitrarily. Such exercise

of discretion is not open for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

11.    In order to lend support to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Kothari

placed reliance on a three Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of Satyender And Ors Vs Saroj And Ors2 and a decision of a

learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Abhishek S/o Vikram

Boke Vs Dr Ashwinikumar Arvind Deshmukh.3


2     (2022) 17 SCC 154.
3     2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 342.
ARS/SAINATH                            9/26
                                                              -CRA-409-2026.DOC

12.    I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions

canvassed across the Bar. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for

the parties, I have also perused the averments in the Plaint and the

Counter-claim.

13.     To begin with, it may be apposite to note the provisions of the

Code which permit the filing of a Counter-claim.

      “6-A. 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 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.”


14.    A bare perusal of the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 6-A

of the Code makes it abundantly clear that a Defendant in a suit may, in

ARS/SAINATH                             10/26
                                                           -CRA-409-2026.DOC

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, but before the

Defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for

delivering his defence has expired. A counter-claim can be in the nature

of a claim for damages or otherwise. Such Counter-claim will have the

same effect as a cross-suit. It is governed by the rules of pleading

applicable to Plaints. Under Order VIII Rule 6-G, rules relating to a

Written Statement by a Defendant apply to the Written Statement filed

in answer to a counter-claim.

15.      From the phraseology of Order VIII Rule 6-A, it becomes

evidently clear that, the right to file a Counter-claim inexorably

emanates from the cause of action that has accrued to the Defendant

against the Plaintiff either before or after the institution of the Suit, but

before the Defendant has delivered his defence. It is thus deducible that,

the limitation on the filing of the Counter-claim is with reference to the

time at which the cause of action has arisen to the Defendant against

the Plaintiff and not in regard to the subject matter of the counter-

claim.

16.      Rule 6-A also does not incorporate any restraint in regard to the

nature or type of the right or claim that can be raised by the Defendant


ARS/SAINATH                           11/26
                                                          -CRA-409-2026.DOC

by way of Counter-claim. The expression, “any right or claim in respect

of a cause of action accruing to the Defendant” makes it abundantly

clear that any right or claim can be set up by the Defendant by way of a

Counter-claim. The text of Rule 6-A does not give any indication even

by implication, much less in express terms, that the Counter-claim must

flow from the claim made by the Plaintiff in the suit. In contrast, Rule 6-

A contains a clear intendment to the contrary by the use of the

expression, “by way of Counter-claim against the claim of the Plaintiff”.

This is in contradistinction to Rule 6 of Order VIII, which provides for

the set-off, that uses the expression “set-off against the Plaintiff’s

demand”.

17.    The intention of the Parliament in providing an avenue to raise

any right or claim by way of counter-claim becomes even clearer if the

object and purpose of the provisions of the Rules that enable the filing

of the Counter-claim are appreciated.

18.   The primary object is to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings

and save upon the Court’s time and also to obviate the inconvenience to

the parties by a joint determination of the claims and counter-claims

and, therefore, resolve all the disputes between the same parties in one

and the same proceeding.

19.    In the case of Jag Mohan Chawla (supra), on which reliance was

placed by Mr. Sawant, the Supreme Court considered the questions :


ARS/SAINATH                          12/26
                                                                -CRA-409-2026.DOC

Whether in a suit for injunction, counter-claim for injunction in respect

of the same or a different property is maintainable ? Whether counter-

claim can be made on different cause of action ?

20.     After adverting to the import of the legislative change brought

about by the CPC Amendment Act, 1976, the Supreme Court

expounded the legal position as under :-

      “5.   ….The counter-claim could be treated as a cross-suit and it
      could be decided in the same suit without relegating the parties to a
      fresh suit. It is true that in money suits, decree must be conformable
      to Order 20, Rule 18, CPC but the object of the amendments
      introduced by Rules 6-A to 6-G are conferment of a statutory right
      to the defendant to set up a counter-claim independent of the claim
      on the basis of which the plaintiff laid the suit, on his own cause of
      action. In sub-rule (1) of Rule 6-A, the language is so couched with
      words of wide width as to enable the parties to bring his own
      independent cause of action in respect of any claim that would be
      the subject-matter of an independent suit. Thereby, it is no longer
      confined to money claim or to cause of action of the same nature as
      original action of the plaintiff. It need not relate to or be connected
      with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the plaintiff.
      The words "any right or claim in respect of a cause of action
      accruing with the defendant" would show that the cause of action
      from which the counter-claim arises need not necessarily arise from
      or have any nexus with the cause of action of the plaintiff that
      occasioned to lay the suit. The only limitation is that the cause of
      action should arise before the time fixed for filing the written
      statement expires. The defendant may set up a cause of action
      which has accrued to him even after the institution of the suit. The
      counter-claim expressly is treated as a cross-suit with all the indicia


ARS/SAINATH                               13/26
                                                                -CRA-409-2026.DOC

      of pleadings as a plaint including the duty to aver his cause of
      action and also payment of the requisite court fee thereon. Instead
      of relegating the defendant to an independent suit, to avert
      multiplicity of the proceeding and needles protection (sic
      protraction), the legislature intended to try both the suit and the
      counter- claim in the same suit as suit and cross-suit and have them
      disposed of in the same trial. In other words, a defendant can claim
      any right by way of a counter-claim in the same suit as suit and
      cross-suit and have them disposed of in the same trial. In other
      words, a defendant can claim any right by way of a counter-claim in
      respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though
      it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and
      have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the
      defendant to file a separate suit. Acceptance of the contention of
      the appellant tends to defeat the purpose of amendment.
      Opportunity also has been provided under Rule 6-C to seek deletion
      of the counter-claim. It is seen that the trial Court had not found it
      necessary to delete the counter- claim. The High Court directed to
      examine the identity of the property. Even otherwise, it being an
      independent cause of action, though the identity of the property
      may be different, there arises no illegality warranting dismissal of
      counter-claim.    Nonetheless,     in    the    same     suit,   both
      the claim in the suit and the counter-claim could be tried and
      decided and disposed of in the same suit.”


21.     The aforesaid exposition of law makes it abundantly clear that,

the counter-claim need not be confined to the cause of action of the

same nature as the original cause of action of the plaintiff. It need not

relate to or be connected with the original cause of action or matter

pleaded by the plaintiff. Nor does the cause of action for the counter-


ARS/SAINATH                               14/26
                                                            -CRA-409-2026.DOC

claim arise from or have any nexus with the cause of action that

constrained the plaintiff to institute the suit. The only limitation is that,

the cause of action should have arisen before the time fixed for filing

the written statement expires. The very purpose of introducing the

Rules 6-A to 6-G of Order VIII of the Code was to obviate multiplicity of

the proceedings and avoidable protraction of the proceedings by

empowering the Court to try and decide both the suit and the counter-

claim in one and the same proceeding as suit and cross-suit, even

though the counter-claim stems out of an independent cause of action

that has accrued to the defendants against the plaintiff.

22.   In the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has expressly

observed that, though the identity of the property may be different that

does not warrant dismissal of the counter-claim.

23.   Mr. Kothari, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, made a

strenuous effort to drive home the point that, the aforesaid decision in

the case of Jag Mohan Chawla (supra), was considered by a three-Judge

Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Satyender & ors. (supra).

And, yet, the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court enunciated that,

the counter-claim should have been excluded under the provisions of

Order VIII Rule 6-C of the Code. Reliance was placed by Mr. Kothari on

the following observations :-

      “23. The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by
      the rules applicable to plaints A counter claim can be set up only

ARS/SAINATH                           15/26
                                                              -CRA-409-2026.DOC

      “against the claim of the plaintiffs”. Since there was no claim of the
      plaintiffs regarding Killa No. 6//8 and 23, the defendants were
      barred to raise any counter claim on these Killa numbers in view of
      Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC as it has nothing to do with the plaintiffs. It
      is true that a counter claim can be made by the defendant, even on
      a separate or independent cause of action [ Jag Mohan Chawla v.
      Dera Radha Swami Satsang (1996) 4 SCC 699].

      24.     The Legislature permits the institution of a counter claim, in
      order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. But then it has certain
      limitations such as that the counter claim cannot exceed the
      pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and that such
      counter claim must be instituted before the defendant has
      delivered his defence or before the time limit for delivering his
      defence has expired. More importantly, such a counter claim must
      be against the plaintiff ! Evidently, in the present case the counter
      claim was not against the plaintiffs. Moreover, as the plaintiffs had
      not claimed any right over the property and the Killa Nos. 6//8
      and 23 are not even a part of the suit property described in the
      plaint by the plaintiffs. Despite the same, such a claim has been
      allowed against the plaintiffs. In fact, we do not find on record any
      reply submitted by the plaintiffs against the counter claim. To be
      fair, such a counter claim should have been excluded in terms of
      Order 8 Rule 6-C CPC. Suffice it to state here that the counter
      claim set up by the defendants has been rightly rejected by the
      High Court.”



24.   The aforesaid observations are required to be appreciated in the

backdrop of the facts of the case as recorded by the Supreme Court in

Paragraph No.21, which reads as under :-


ARS/SAINATH                             16/26
                                                              -CRA-409-2026.DOC

         “21. The other finding of second appellate court regarding the
         counterclaim of the defendants on Killa Nos. 6//18 and 23 is,
         however, correct and is based on right interpretation of Order
         8 Rule 6-A CPC. From the pleadings of the plaintiffs, it is clear
         that they had never raised any claim on Killa No. 6//18 or
         Killa No. 23. The defendants in their written statement while
         denying the rights of the plaintiffs on the land of which
         particulars had been given by the plaintiffs, quite ingeniously
         inserted the two Killa Nos.6//18 and 23, setting a counter-
         claim on these plots. The trial court and the first appellate
         court while dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit had allowed this
         claim for (sic) without assigning any reasons. In fact, this
         counterclaim which was raised by the defendant is barred
         under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC.”


25.   It is pertinent to note, the Supreme Court did not deviate from

the enunciation of law in the case of Jag Mohan Chawla (supra). On the

contrary, the three-Judge Bench in terms observed that, a counter-claim

can be made by the defendant, even on a separate or independent cause

of action and for that proposition, reference was made to the decision in

the case of Jag Mohan Chawla (supra). On facts, the Supreme Court

found that, the defendants therein had not made any counter-claim

against the plaintiffs and, in that context, the Supreme Court observed

that, a counter-claim must be against the plaintiff and the claim made

by the defendants was in respect of the properties which were not even

part of the suit properties described in the plaint and, thus, such a




ARS/SAINATH                             17/26
                                                           -CRA-409-2026.DOC

counter-claim should have been excluded in terms of Order VIII Rule 6-

C of the Code.

26.   The aforesaid decision, cannot be read as laying down the

proposition that, the counter-claim must relate to the property which is

the subject matter of the suit or must arise or flow from the cause of

action pleaded by the plaintiff. On the contrary, the three-Judge Bench

has reiterated in no uncertain terms that, a counter-claim can be made

by the defendant, even on a separate or independent cause of action.

27.   This propels me to the justifiability of the exercise of discretion by

the trial Court to exclude the counter-claim under the provisions of Rule

6-C of Order VIII of the Code. It reads as under :-

                                         ORDER VIII

              “6-C. Exclusion of counter-claim. - Where a defendant
              sets up a counter-claim and the plaintiff contends that
              the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by
              way of counter-claim but in an independent suit, the
              plaintiff may, at any time before issues are settled in
              relation to the counter-claim, apply to the Court for an
              order that such counter-claim may be excluded, and the
              Court may, on the hearing of such application make such
              order as it thinks fit.”


28.   A plain reading of the aforesaid Rule would indicate that, it

enables the plaintiff to apply to the Court that the claim raised by the

defendant by way of a counter-claim ought not be disposed of as a

counter-claim but in an independent suit. The plaintiff may activate the
ARS/SAINATH                              18/26
                                                           -CRA-409-2026.DOC

said Rule at any time before the settlement of issues in relation to the

counter-claim. The Rule confers discretion on the Court to make such

order as it thinks fit. Evidently, the Court may exercise the discretion to

exclude the counter-claim or direct that the counter-claim shall be tried

and disposed of as a cross-suit.

29.   Undoubtedly, the Rule 6-C vests discretion in the Court to pass an

order to exclude the counter-claim. However, such discretion is required

to be exercised by the Court in a judicious manner as is the norm for the

exercise of discretion wherever the legislature vests discretion in the

Court. A judicious exercise of discretion would enjoin the Court to be

cognizant of all the relevant factors which bear upon the same. The

discretion cannot be exercised unreasonably or arbitrarily, dehors the

weight of the facts and circumstances of the given case.

30.   The thrust of the submission of Mr. Kothari was that, the

legislative intention in enabling the plaintiff to apply to the Court to

exclude the counter-claim is required to be kept in view. If the plaintiff

applies to the Court and the Court, in turn, finds it expedient to exclude

the counter-claim, such exercise of discretion cannot be interfered with.

A very strong reliance was placed by Mr. Kothari on the judgment of this

Court in the case of Abhishek Boke (supra). In the said case, a learned

Single Judge of this Court, construed the provisions of Rule 6-C as

under :-


ARS/SAINATH                          19/26
                                                                 -CRA-409-2026.DOC

              “13.    …..The intention of the Legislature in incorporating
              Rule 6-C of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is clear
              and suggests that the request made on behalf of the plaintiff
              to exclude the counter-claim, has to be given due
              weightage. It is the cardinal principle in judicial proceedings
              that the party to the proceedings has the inherent right to
              oppose any claim made by the other party, even if there is
              no provision in the statute providing a right to the party to
              oppose the claim of the other party. Therefore, when Rule 6-
              C is incorporated in Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
              it is clear that the Court is bound to consider the request of
              the plaintiffs. Though the latter part of Rule 6-C of Order 8
              of the Code of Civil Procedure gives discretion to the Court
              to pass appropriate orders on the application made by the
              plaintiffs requesting that the counter-claim be excluded, the
              discretion will have to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff.
              The object of Rule 6-C of Order 8 of the Code of Civil
              Procedure appears to be based on the cardinal principle that
              the plaintiff is dominus litis and it it is the right of the
              plaintiff to proceed with the civil suit in the manner he feels
              proper and best suited for proving his case. If the defendant
              is permitted to make counter-claim, he gets the right to
              steer the civil suit as per his wishes and in certain situations
              there may be a conflict between the plaintiff and the
              defendant on the point as to how the civil suit should
              proceed.
              If the provisions of Rule 6C of Order 8 of the Code of Civil
              Procedure are not given the above meaning, but are
              construed to mean that the request of the plaintiff to
              exclude the counter-claim is immaterial, then the provisions
              of Rule 6C of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be
              rendered nugatory.”

ARS/SAINATH                               20/26
                                                           -CRA-409-2026.DOC



31.    Indeed, the learned Single Judge, has enunciated in terse terms

that the request made on behalf of the plaintiff to exclude the counter-

claim, has to be given due weightage. The aforesaid enunciation is

premised on the principle that, the plaintiff is dominus litus and has the

right to proceed with the suit in the manner he feels proper and best

suited for the prosecution of his cause.

32.    The aforesaid pronouncement, in the considered view of this

Court, however cannot be construed as giving the plaintiff a carte

blanche. As indicated above, the Rule enables the plaintiff to apply to

the Court to have the counter-claim excluded. Ultimately, it is in the

discretion of the Court to pass such order as it thinks fit. The ratio of the

aforesaid pronouncement is that, the Court while considering the

question as to whether the counter-claim is required to be excluded

ought to have due regard to the application made by the plaintiff and

deal with the grounds on which the exclusion of the counter-claim is

sought. The Rule cannot be read to mean that, the plaintiff’s wish has to

be necessarily accepted by the Court, for the simple reason that, if it so

construed, the discretion conferred on the Court would be subjugated to

the desire of the plaintiff.

33.    Moreover, it is an established canon of interpretation of statutes

that one provision cannot be read in isolation. To gather the real

intention of the legislature, the statute is required to be read as a whole,
ARS/SAINATH                           21/26
                                                              -CRA-409-2026.DOC

section by section, clause by clause and word by word. A profitable

reference, in this context, can be made to a judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India Vs Peerless General Finance

& Investment Co. Ltd., & ors.4, which enunciates the position as under :-

        “33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context.
        They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the
        text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can
        be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best
        which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A
        statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted.
        With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole
        and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase
        and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its
        enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by
        such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and
        words may take colour and appear different than when the
        statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context.
        With those glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and
        discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each
        word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of
        the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can
        be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that
        every word has a place and everything is in its place. It is by
        looking at the definition as a whole in the setting of the entire
        Act and by reference to what preceded the enactment and the
        reasons for it that the Court construed the expression 'Prize Chit'
        in Srinivasa and we find no reason to depart from the Court's
        construction.”
                                                      (emphasis supplied)


4     AIR 1987 SC 1023
ARS/SAINATH                            22/26
                                                          -CRA-409-2026.DOC



34.   Applying the aforesaid well recognized principle of statutory

interpretation the provisions contained in Rule 6-C of Order VIII of the

Code are required to be read harmoniously with the provisions

contained in Rule 6-A of Order VIII of the Code. By giving primacy to

the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 6-C of the Code and the

wishes of the plaintiff, an interpretation which defeats the object of

avoiding the multiplicity of the proceedings and ensuring the

determination of all the questions in controversy between the parties in

the same proceeding by trying the suit and the cross-suit, cannot be

adopted.

35.   In a given case, the Court may, having regard to the nature of the

counter-claim find it appropriate that, the counter-claim be excluded

and the claim therein be tried in an independent suit. A variety of

factors may influence the exercise of discretion by the Court when

called upon to consider the question of exclusion of the counter-claim.

The nature of the counter-claim, the progress made in the suit, the

complexity of the matter that may arise if the suit and the counter-claim

are tried together, the likelihood of the protraction in the event of trial

of the suit and the counter-claim together, and the like are the factors

which may bear upon the exercise of discretion. However, the ipse dixit

of the plaintiff cannot unduly weigh with the Court.



ARS/SAINATH                          23/26
                                                         -CRA-409-2026.DOC

36.   In the light of the aforesaid position in law, re-adverting to the

facts of the case, the prime reason which seems to have weighed with

the trial Court is that, the properties in the suit and the counter-claim

were different and there did not appear to be any nexus between the

properties in the suit and the counter-claim. In law, as noted above, the

identity of the property is not necessary for the filing of the counter-

claim by the defendant. The learned Civil Judge, thus, applied an

incorrect test to decide the question as to whether the counter-claim

was required to be excluded.

37.   Even on facts, the learned Civil Judge, was in error in observing

that, there was no nexus between the suit properties and the counter-

claim properties. Not only in the description of the suit properties, were

the counter-claim properties shown to be situated on the northern

boundary of the suit properties but also in Paragraph No. 19 of the

plaint, the plaintiff has made categorical assertion that, the counter-

claim properties i.e. Survey Nos. 121/3 and 93/A/2/K/3 were situated

on the northern side of the suit properties and the Defendant Nos.1 to 6

were the common owners of the said properties.

38.   The learned Civil Judge lost sight of the fact that, the very genesis

of the dispute between the parties was the alleged obstruction to the

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit properties, and

the hindrances sought to be put in the development of the suit


ARS/SAINATH                          24/26
                                                           -CRA-409-2026.DOC

properties by the defendants, who laid claim over the contiguous and

adjoining counter-claim properties. Thus, the learned Civil Judge clearly

misdirected himself in observing that, there was no nexus between the

suit properties and the counter-claim properties.

39.   This Court finds that, in the facts of the case, the determination of

the suit and the cross-suit, in one and the same proceeding, is

indispensable for a complete and effectual adjudication of all the

disputes between the parties. The exclusion of the counter-claim will

give rise to multiplicity of the proceedings and is also fraught with the

risk of protracted litigation and conflicting orders as well.

40.   The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that, the

impugned order cannot be sustained as the learned Civil Judge has not

exercised the discretion in a judicious manner. The revision application,

therefore, deserves to be allowed.

41.   Hence, the following order :-

                                      ::ORDER::


              (i)     The Civil Revision Application stands allowed.

              (ii)    The impugned order dated 04th July, 2026,

              stands quashed and set aside.

              (iii)   The counter-claim stands restored to the file of

              trial Court.

              (iv)    The trial Court is requested to decide the suit

ARS/SAINATH                            25/26
                                                            -CRA-409-2026.DOC

              and the counter-claim in accordance with the

              provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible.

              (v)    It is clarified that, the consideration was

              confined to determine the legality, propriety and

              correctness of the order of exclusion of the counter-

              claim and the observations hereinabove shall not be

              construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of

              the matter.


              No costs.




                                               [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS/SAINATH                            26/26