Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Issues Are Framed And Suit Has Proceeded Substantially: Karnataka High Court
The Court said permitting a counterclaim at such a belated stage would prejudice the plaintiff and derail the trial, especially after the plaintiff’s evidence had concluded.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an order that permitted the filing of a counterclaim more than six years after the written statement and after the plaintiff had completed leading evidence. The Court held that allowing a counterclaim at such an advanced stage violates the procedural framework under the Civil Procedure Code and the binding precedent of the Supreme Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil observed, “The counterclaim filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was allowed after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff and after more than six years from the date of filing of the written statement. Hence, applying the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed.”
The Court added, “Permitting such counterclaim would result in de novo trial and prejudice to the plaintiff. The proper course available to the respondents is to file a separate suit.”
Advocate Ravishankar Shastry G. appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Hareesh Bhandary represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner had filed a suit before the Additional Civil Judge seeking mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against the Respondents. The Respondents filed their written statement in August 2013, and the petitioner’s evidence was concluded in 2015.
More than three years later, in 2019, the Respondents filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the written statement and raise a counterclaim. The Trial Court allowed the application. Aggrieved, the Petitioner challenged the order before the High Court.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the Respondents had filed their written statement long before the petitioner completed leading evidence, the application to introduce a counterclaim was filed several years after that stage, when the matter was already posted for the Respondents’ evidence. The Court held that such a belated counterclaim was procedurally impermissible.
The Court observed, “The counterclaim filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was allowed after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff and after more than six years from the date of filing of the written statement.” It found that the trial court had failed to assess the procedural impact of allowing the counterclaim at that stage and had acted contrary to settled legal principles.
The Court noted that in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri, the Supreme Court had held that while a counterclaim need not always be filed along with the written statement, it must not be entertained once the suit has substantially progressed. The Apex Court held that a counterclaim at such a stage would defeat the orderly conduct of civil trials and could not be permitted once issues have been framed and the trial commenced.
Applying this principle, the Court found that the Trial Court had committed an error in allowing the counterclaim after the petitioner had concluded his evidence. It held, “Permitting such counterclaim would result in de novo trial and prejudice to the plaintiff.”
The Court clarified that nothing prevented the Respondents from seeking relief by instituting independent proceedings. It stated, “The proper course available to the respondents is to file a separate suit.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order allowing the belated counterclaim.
Cause Title: Abdul Sattar v. M. Khalid (Deceased) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:20126)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Ravishankar Shastry G.
Respondents: Advocate Hareesh Bhandary
