Bombay High Court
PRALHAD ANANDRAO PATILversusHINDURAO NIVRUTTI SHINDE AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The procedural code does not require permission to file a counter claim, rendering the order granting such permission unsustainable.
Summary
Petitioner Pralhad Anandrao Patil filed a writ petition challenging an order that allowed him to file a counter claim under Exhibit‑44. The respondents contended that the procedural code does not require any permission to file a counter claim and that the order was therefore unsustainable. The Court examined the legal position and agreed that the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate a need for prior permission to institute a counter claim. Consequently, the order granting such permission was held to be untenable. However, the Court emphasized that the respondent's right to seek relief cannot be barred and she may file the appropriate proceedings as permitted by law. The writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Issues considered
- Whether the procedural code requires permission to file a counter claim
- Whether the order granting permission to file a counter claim is sustainable
- Whether the remedy for the respondent can be foreclosed
Subjects
- counter claim
- procedural code
- writ petition
- permission
- remedy
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
34-WP-4325-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4325 OF 2026
Pralhad Anandrao Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
Hindurao Nivrutti Shinde And Ors. ...Respondents
…..
Adv. Nikhil Pawar (through V.C.) a/w Adv. Manasi Patil, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Adv. Umesh Pawar a/w Adv. Sayali Mane, Advocate for Respondent
No.1(A).
…..
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 06th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. :
Heard.
2. The respondent No. 1A is the only contesting party in this matter.
Though couple of respondents are unserved, still matter can be taken
up for final disposal.
3. The counsel appearing for both sides are unanimous that the
present case is covered by judgment dated 20.08.2026 rendered by this
Court in the matter of Sou. Geeta Viraj Bhagwag and others Versus
Gurav Murlidhar Bade in Writ Petition No. 1554 of 2026.
4. The application Exhibit - 44 was presented seeking permission to
ZIP 1 of 2
34-WP-4325-2026 (C).doc
file counter claim, which is allowed by the impugned order. The
procedural code does not contemplate any permission to be sought for
filing counter claim. There is substance in the contention of the counsel
for the petitioner. Neither the application Exhibit - 44 was tenable, nor
the order passed thereon is sustainable.
5. Considering the legal position, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1 has graciously conceded the position.
6. However, this Court cannot overlook that the remedy for the
respondent No. 1A to seek relief cannot be foreclosed. It would be open
for her to file the proceedings as is permissible in law.
7. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause ‘a’ and the
respondent No.1A shall have liberty to file the proceedings as is
permissible in law.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matter.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]
ZIP 2 of 2
Checking your session…