Bombay High Court

GEETA VIRAJ BHAGWATversusGUARAV MURLIDHAR BADE

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

A counter‑claim is a plaint and must be registered without any permission; the trial court lacked jurisdiction to refuse it, though the plaintiff may challenge it under Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C.

Summary

The petitioners, who were original defendants in R.C.S. No.655 of 2023, filed a counter‑claim via Application Exh.93 on 26‑11‑2024 before the issues were settled. The trial court, by order dated 19‑09‑2025, refused to register the counter‑claim. The petitioners challenged this refusal by filing a writ petition, arguing that no permission is required under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC to register a counter‑claim and that the trial court erred in rejecting it. The respondents contended that the counter‑claim was barred by limitation and should be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11. The High Court held that a counter‑claim is treated as a plaint, no permission is needed for its registration, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to refuse it; the parties may instead seek its rejection via Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C. Consequently, the counter‑claim shall be registered and the writ petition was disposed, with liberty to approach the CPC remedies.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to refuse registration of a counter‑claim filed under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC
Whether any permission is required to register a counter‑claim under the CPC
Whether the counter‑claim is barred by limitation and can be challenged by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11
Whether the parties may seek suspension of the High Court’s order

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VIII Rule 6A, Order VIII Rule 6C, Order VII Rule 11, Order XII Rule 11

Subjects

counter claim
Code of Civil Procedure
Order VIII Rule 6A
limitation
jurisdiction
writ petition
registration of counter claim
Order VII Rule 11

Judgment

1554-2026-WP-Jud=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1554 OF 2026
Digitally

UDAY
signed by
UDAY 1. Sou. Geeta Viraj Bhagwag
SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
Date:
JAGTAP 2026.08.20
16:11:49
+0530 2. Sou. Archana Sandeep Badwe.

3. Amar Murlidhar Bade

4. Saroj Amar Bade … Petitioners
Vs.
1. Gurav Murlidhar Bade

2. Smt. Manda @ Mandakini Murlidhar Bade

3. Tanishka Gaurav Bade

4. Yash Gaurav Bade
… Respondents
5. Sou. Shraddha Gaurav Bade
………….
Mr. Drupad S. Patil a/w Rugwed R. Kinkar for the Petitioners.
Mr. Chetan Patil i/b Ishaan Kapse a/w Shruti Ghodake, Tejas Patil for
Respondents.
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

RESERVED ON : 14th AUGUST, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th AUGUST, 2026.

JUDGMENT :-

. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioners, who were original defendants are assailing order

Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 6
1554-2026-WP-Jud=.doc

dated 19.09.2025 passed below Exh.93 thereby refusing to register the

counter claim.

3. The respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff and the petitioners are

original defendant no.1 to 4. The respondent no.2 is the original

defendant no.5. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 are the proposed defendants.

The parties are litigating in R.C.S. No. 655 of 2023 for the relief of

declaration and injunction. The relationship between the parties is not

disputed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued as to

how the counter claim preferred by them deserves to be registered and

the reliefs are within limitation. It is urged that the counter claim was

filed before settlement of the issues and, therefore, its rejection is error of

jurisdiction. It is further urged that the counter claim pertains to the

subject matter and the parties in the suit. It is urged that in order to

avoid multiplicity of the litigation, it should have been accepted and dealt

with during course of trial. It is further submitted that it would be open

for the respondents – plaintiffs to take recourse to Order XII Rule 11 of

the CPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon following

judgments :-

(i) A.V. Murugan vs. K. Maheshwari & Ors. (2019) SSC Online

Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 6
1554-2026-WP-Jud=.doc

Mad.39139.
(ii) Jag Mohan Chawla & Anr. vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang &
Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 699.
(iii) Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri & Ors.
(2020) 2 SCC 394.
(iv) Punnakkal Suresh vs. Saraswathi (2018) SCC Online
Ker. 3494.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Chetan Patil for respondent no.1 vehemently

repelled the submissions. It is submitted that counter claim is hopelessly

barred by limitation. The cause of action of the reliefs in the counter

claim are besides the properties and parties involved in the suit. The

counter claim is liable to be rejected at the threshold because it is against

Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. It is urged that prejudice would be

caused to the respondents - plaintiffs if such a counter claim is accepted

and entertained.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

judgment of Ashokkumar Kalara (supra).

8. Having heard both sides at length, what emerges from the record is

that R.C.S. No.655 of 2023 was filed on 11.07.2023. The petitioners filed

Written Statements on 03.10.2023 and 21.09.2023. Application Exh.93

along with counter claim was filed on 26.11.2024, before settlement of

issues.

Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 6
1554-2026-WP-Jud=.doc

9. The petitioners solicited permission to file or register counter claim

vide their Application Exh.93. It was contested by the respondents –

plaintiffs. The rival submissions of the parties which are in tune of the

submissions made before this Court were dealt with by the trial Court and

the Application was rejected by the impugned order. The whole exercise

of seeking permission to file counter claim and its refusal is bereft of

legal sanction. There is no provision in Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC for

soliciting any permission to register the counter claim.

10. A careful perusal of Order VIII Rule 6-A of the CPC shows that a

counter-claim is in the nature of a plaint. It’s nature and the scope is

prescribed under Rule 6 of Order VIII. As per Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6A, if

the counter claim is to be treated as a plaint and rules applicable to plaint

are made applicable to it then there is no necessity to secure any

permission for registering it. No permission is required for filing plaint

even if it is barred by limitation, untenable or against any statutory

provision.

11. By implication of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6A of Order VIII, Order VII

Rule 11 would be applicable to counter claim also. It would be open for

the respondents - plaintiffs to claim for rejection of counter claim by filing

appropriate Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC so that the

counter claim which is barred by time or any provision of law or lacking

Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 6
1554-2026-WP-Jud=.doc

cause of action, would be nipped in its bud. The time and energy can be

saved by resorting to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Such course has not

been undertaken in the present case. It is open for the respondents –

plaintiffs to take recourse to Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C of

CPC.

12. The petitioners unnecessarily indulged in filing Application Exh.93

and invited contest as well as impugned order. The entire exercise is

without jurisdiction. The rival submissions of the counsel advanced

before this Court can be dealt with if the Application under Order VII

Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C of CPC is filed before the trial Court. I,

therefore, refrain from commenting on the submissions of the parties on

merits, which are specifically kept open.

13. The Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the parties to take

recourse to Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C of the CPC. All

contentions of the parties are kept open which should be decided on

merits. Needless to state that the counter claim shall stand registered.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )

14. The learned counsel for the respondents requests this Court to

suspend the order passed today, as his clients want to approach the Apex

Court.

Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 6
1554-2026-WP-Jud=.doc

15. The request is objected by the petitioners.

16. I have already observed in the judgment and order that the counter

claim gets registered no sooner than it is filed and there is no provision in

the Code of Civil Procedure to seek permission for registration. The

aggrieved party has remedies provided under the Code of Civil Procedure.

No case is made out for suspending the judgment and order pronounced.

The request is rejected.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )

Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…