Allahabad High Court
SURENDRA SINGH AND 4 OTHERversusBHIMRAJ AND 5 OTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Holding
The amendment of the written statement to include the counter‑claim is valid and may be decided together with the original suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Summary
The revisionists challenged the trial court's order permitting the defendants to amend their written statement to include a counter‑claim under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC read with Section 151. They argued that the original statement filed in 2022 did not contain such reliefs and that an amendment was impermissible because a separate suit concerning the same property was pending. The respondents contended that the amendment was necessary to disclose relevant monetary transactions and that the counter‑claim pertained to the same parties and property, allowing it to be decided together with the injunction suit. The High Court held that allowing a counter‑claim by amendment avoids multiplicity of proceedings and there is no statutory bar, especially as no limitation period applies to injunction relief. Consequently, the court found no error in the trial court's decision and dismissed the revision. It also directed the trial court to dispose of both the suit and the counter‑claim on merits within one year.
Issues considered
- Whether an amendment to a written statement to include a counter‑claim is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC when a related suit is pending.
- Whether the amendment leads to multiplicity of proceedings or can be decided together with the original suit.
- Whether the claim for injunction is subject to any limitation period.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VI Rule 17, Section 151
Subjects
- Amendment of pleadings
- Counter‑claim
- Injunction
- Multiplicity of proceedings
- Limitation
- Revision
- Civil Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL REVISION No. - 145 of 2025
Surendra Singh And 4 Other
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Bhimraj And 5 Other
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Santosh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.C.Tiwari(Ac), Prabal Singh
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.
3. This revision, at the instance of plaintiffs of a suit for injunction,
assails validity of the order dated 28.07.2025, whereby an application 89-
Ka filed by the defendants-respondents under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.
read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that written statement filed
earlier in the year 2022 did not contain any such statements or reliefs and
now in the year 2025, by way of amendment, counter-claim has been set
up. It is further contended that in relation to the property, another suit is
pending and, therefore, amendment could not be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that by way of
amendment, defendant wanted to bring on record certain transactions of
money inter-se parties or their predecessors and the said fact was relevant
for deciding the controversy.
6. I have considered the submissions made and have perused the record.
7. The trial court has elaborately discussed the nature of amendment and
has recorded a finding that the property involved in the suit as well as in
the counter-claim is same and the parties are also common and both the
parties claim relief for injunction against each other. An opinion has been
CLRE No. 145 of 2025
2
formed by the trial court in the facts of the case that both the reliefs
claimed can be considered simultaneously and in order to avoid
multiplicity of the proceedings, counter-claim can be decided alongwith
suit itself.
8. The Court does not find any error in the view taken by the court below
as the very purpose of preferring a counter-claim is to avoid the
multiplicity of the proceedings and there appears to be no bar in
incorporating the counter-claim in a written statement by way of
amendment. Even otherwise, the amendment sought was in relation to
relief of injunction for which no period of limitation is prescribed.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court is not inclined to interfere with
the order impugned.
11. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that suit proceedings may
be expedited.
13. Considering the same, it is directed that trial court shall decide the suit
as well as counter-claim on merits within a period of one year from the
date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.
14. This direction is subject to co-operation by the parties and their
counsel.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J)
April 23, 2026
Sazia
Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…