Order VIII CPC | Counter-Claim Can Lie Only Between Plaintiff And Defendant, Not Between Defendants: Calcutta High Court

The Court was hearing an application filed by the first defendant seeking permission to file a rejoinder and written statement in response to a counter-claim raised by the third defendant in its written statement.

A Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Roy, while referring to the structure of and the Rules under Order VIII, observed that “…all these provisions laid down under Order VIII of CPC unambiguously and without any doubt demonstrate that a counter claim would only lie in between the plaintiff and defendant and not in between the defendants”.

Advocate Rajarshi Dutta represented the plaintiff, while Advocate Kushal Chatterjee represented the respondents.

Background

The plaintiff instituted a commercial suit against multiple defendants. The third defendant filed a written statement containing a counter-claim, and the first defendant thereafter sought leave to file an additional written statement in response to that counter-claim.

The application was premised on the argument that Rule 9(2) of Order VIII permitted the Court to allow further pleadings by “any of the parties.”

The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing that the concept of counter-claim under Order VIII is confined to the plaintiff-defendant relationship and that a co-defendant cannot file pleadings against another co-defendant’s counter-claim.

Reliance was placed on Rules 6-A to 6-G of Order VIII to demonstrate that a counter-claim is treated as a cross-suit only as between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The first defendant relied on two judicial precedents, contending that the term “parties” should be given a broad meaning. The plaintiff argued that the cited decisions were distinguishable and did not apply to the statutory context governing counterclaims.

Court’s Observation

The Calcutta High Court analysed Rule 6-A of Order VIII and held that the statutory definition of counter-claim makes it clear that the right is restricted to a claim set up by the defendant “against the plaintiff.”

The Bench noted that the provision treats a counter-claim as having the effect of a cross-suit only to enable the Court to adjudicate both the original claim and the counter-claim in the same suit. It emphasised that these provisions unambiguously demonstrate that a counterclaim would only lie between the plaintiff and defendant and not between the defendants.

Turning to Rule 9(2), the Bench held that the expression “parties” must be interpreted consistently with the statutory context of counter-claims. The Court invoked the doctrine of “ejusdem generis”, explaining that general words must be construed in light of specific words used earlier in the same context.

Applying this principle, the Court held that the word “parties” in Rule 9(2), insofar as counter-claims are concerned, must be restricted to the plaintiff and the defendant. The Bench explained that the general expression cannot be given a wider meaning.

The Court considered the precedents cited by the first defendant but held that neither decision applied to the facts of this case. It was observed that the first case involved issues of the addition of parties and amendment, and the second concerned an election petition governed by a distinct statutory framework. The Bench held that these decisions did not alter the statutory position under Order VIII regarding counterclaims.

The Court further observed that permitting a co-defendant to file an additional written statement to meet another defendant’s counter-claim would result in a “trial within a trial,” which the law does not permit.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court found the application “totally frivolous, harassive and a ploy adopting dilatory tactics to delay the trial of the commercial suit.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application, imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the concerned defendant, to be paid to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority.

Cause Title: Eden Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. & Others

Appearances:

Plaintiff: Advocates Rajarshi Dutta, Sarbajit Mukherjee, Deepak Jain, Jishnu Dutta

Respondents: Advocates Kushal Chatterjee, Subhashis Mitra, Shibjit Mitra, Debanik Banerjee, Steven S. Biswas, Abir Lal Chakraborty, Arijit Mohinder

Click here to read/download Judgment